Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunei at the 2013 Southeast Asian 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 was no consensus. WP:OSE is not a very good stand-alone argument. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei at the 2013 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORGIN, WP:BRANCH, and GNG. Not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – not substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. This information is already covered in "2013 Southeast Asian Games" which is probably notable. Previous PROD [1] ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep everything I've seen suggests that performances of countries at multi-country international games events are inherently notable. CJK09 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep because this is a notable event and your basically saying that lets delete all of the other regional pages as it "doesn't follow that rule". Does it need improving, yes. Is it worth deleting it, no. Matt294069 is coming 05:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.