Talk:Chengdu Rongcheng F.C.

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

China

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merge of Phoenix Hill Football Stadium into Chengdu Rongcheng F.C.

NO MERGE

Proposed merge withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I do not see evidence that this stadium is independently notable. Only one source (qq.com) provides SIGCOV of the stadium and I could not find more sources to establish notability for a separate article voorts (talk/contributions) 02:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: ~~Wikipedia talk:WikIProject China,~~ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. voorts (talk/contributions) 06:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not much research needed to go into mine. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 4 probably blogs. 3 seems decent. Justi yaya 14:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

definitely not blogs. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think 3 establishes notability. Soureces 1, 2, and 4 are just routine stories about the building's construction, and 4 is only a couple of sentences long. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Cool. Are we free to remove the merger templates, or do we need to wait a little for things to settle down? IDontHaveSkype (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More than one source is needed to establish notability. I don't believe that sources 1, 2, and 4 do so. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: I mean, the stadium is clearly an independent topic to the football club (they only play in it but don't own it), and it hosted matches/events that aren't related to the club, so I think merging the two articles wouldn't make sense in that regard. In the meantime, mind checking these sources? (and I guess saying those previous sources were routine reports is fair) [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] IDontHaveSkype (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6, 7, and 9 appear to be routine, primary news reporting on attendance at the staidum. 8 gives good context for construction of new stadiums in China, including this one, but the mentions of this one are trivial. 10 is also a trivial mention about a team practicing there.

The fact that this building has won an international award per source 5 seems to indicate that there should be more sources in architectural journals/news that would better establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IDontHaveSkype, just checking in. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Well, the way I see it, it definitely shouldn't be merely a trivial mention on a related article like Chengdu Rongcheng F.C. and nowhere else. Articles that link to it (e.g., Malaysia national football team) fundamentally shouldn't, instead, link to an unrelated football club (for the purpose of international games). If we are talking about a merger, I feel there's enough independent points outside of the football club that merging seems unreasonable. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll withdraw my merge request at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.