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 delete. This one seems like a good candidate for a no consensus closure with five keeps and four deletes. However, one point is that none of the keeps could demonstrate any notability beyond the routine coverage of the event (it is quite understandable that a game between Russian and Ukrainian champions does get some coverage, but in fact almost every high-profile game gets, and we normally do not write articles about single games). The second point is that five keeps are two users in good standings, one of them inactive, and three IPs, who basically do not make any meaningful contribution to the discussion, just come here to vote. 4:2 would (barely) be consensus to delete. Again, this not how I notmally close AfD discussions, and everybody is welcome to take this one to WP:DRV so that fellow editors can re-evaluate my closure.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super Cup of Champions[edit]

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

PROD removed with the reason of "good known tournament, plz start a full discussion." I disagree, and believe the original PROD rationale of "non-notable friendly match, not significantly covered in reliable sources" remains valid - this was a one-off event with no notability and no lasting significance. Giant Snowman 13:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. No reason to delete this article. Big coverage in Russian/Ukrainian media,for example see [1] [2] [3] etc (many links in the article). Best clubs of the leagues took part in it (united supercup of two countries). Potentially impact to create the United Russia-Ukraine league in future [4]. Similar notability as for other 2013 friendly tournaments. NickSt (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first ref is self-published, the other two do not confer notability. Giant Snowman 16:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another links (in Russian), not only sports media: Korrespondent (net) [5], TSN.ua [6], [7], Sport-Express [8], Sovetsky Sport [9] etc. NickSt (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no significant coverage of the tournament - this is all WP:ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 18:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normal coverage not different from another supercups. NickSt (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable tournament with many sources in the article. 178.93.236.79 (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Big keep per arguments above. The name itself and the coverage it got are enough to keep it. 176.26.247.147 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A one-off exhibition game like this is certainly not worthy of an article. The closing admin should have a look at the contributions of the IPs, as to me they look like obvious meatpuppets (both appeared to comment on AfDs regarding friendly tournaments) Number 5 7 13:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So was the 2013 Uli Hoeneß Cup, but I don't see it nominated for deletion. The teams participating in it, the champions of two leagues, and the context in which it was created, which is a possible union between the championships, is what makes it notable. The media coverage was huge and the name says a lot! 176.26.247.147 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is coverage, as there is for most things sport, but it's not significant in the notability sense of the word. Gigs (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define notability. As far as my common sense tells me, a cup created as a super cup between the champions of two leagues, in the context of talks about uniting the league, it's notable. More notable than the 2013 Uli Hoeneß Cup. 176.26.247.147 (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The trophy got a very large coverage in the local medias, and the teams themselves approached it as more than a friendly game. Also, it was seen as a milestone in the attempt to create a united championship. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not edited for three months then suddenly reappear for this debate? Is this more meatpuppetry? Number 5 7 01:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article with many sources. 194.50.51.252 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPORTSEVENT requires that the game is "widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game". Sancho 17:23, 23 December 2013 (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.