Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1913 Far Eastern Games


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

1913 Far Eastern Games
Page only lists the name of the event and where it was held, which is all contained in the page for the Far Eastern Championship Games. The games themselves are not very notable, only registering 218 hits when quoted on Google, but there's enough info there to keep it, I think.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason - they all simply restate information in the parent article and don't have much potential for any expansion beyond that: --fuzzy510 21:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1915 Far Eastern Games
 * 1917 Far Eastern Games
 * 1919 Far Eastern Games
 * 1921 Far Eastern Games
 * 1923 Far Eastern Games
 * 1925 Far Eastern Games
 * 1927 Far Eastern Games
 * 1930 Far Eastern Games
 * 1934 Far Eastern Games


 * Delete per nom. In addition, the Asian Games infobox should be altered so it only links to the FECG and no years. -- Kicking222 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge content (if any) and redirect. Outright delete without merge as second option. -- saberwyn 00:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Recreate/break out if expanded to sufficient size for a standalone article at a later date. -- saberwyn 07:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all; there's a distinct possibility of expansion from other sources such as Marrow of the Nation (ref images at ), and the obvious inclusion of results tables / sports played would bring this to the same state as contemporary articles. Z iggurat 03:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge for now as the articles have no independent content, though the topic is clearly encyclopedic and I would support recreating the articles later if someone were to actually research the subject. In my opinion this should not have been brought to AfD as it's only sensible to merge articles with negligible content and no formal process is required.  Oh, and please don't judge the notability of 90-year old events by a google search!--Pharos 03:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That was actually more intended to show that there wasn't a wealth of easily-accessible information about them than to claim their notability (I worded it badly), but duly noted. --fuzzy510 05:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all; They are all brilliant, it would be a disgrace to loose them all
 * Merge per Pharos. BoojiBoy 00:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * strong keep all as stamps were issued commemorating them (if i'm not mistaken) and they can easily be expanded with some background research. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.