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 KEEP for Channel One Cup (football). There was no consensus regarding the other subsidiary articles. However some comments indicated support for a merger of the subsidiary articles but I suggest discussing this on the Channel One Cup (football) talk page first and then bringing those articles back to AfD in a dedicated discussion later if needed. As far as this discussion is concerned, there was no consensus for a deletion or merger of the subsidiary articles. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 18:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Channel One Cup (football)

[edit]
Channel One Cup (football) (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)

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 competition, not significantly covered in reliable sources" remains valid. GiantSnowman 13:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you illustrate my point. YOU don't know about this topic, therefore it must be not important. But, since you ask, I will spend some of my time showing some examples.
Here is a list of the news articles on ua-football.com from December 2008 (just one month):
  1. [5]
  2. [6]
  3. [7]
  4. [8]
  5. [9]
  6. [10]
  7. [11]
  8. [12]
  9. [13]
  10. [14]
  11. [15]
  12. [16]
  13. [17]
  14. [18]
  15. [19]
  16. [20]
Lets try another major Ukrainian football website, terrikon.com, looking just for the month of December 2008:
  1. [21]
  2. [22]
  3. [23]
  4. [24]
  5. [25]
  6. [26]
  7. [27]
  8. [28]
  9. [29]
  10. [30]
  11. [31]
  12. [32]
  13. [33]
  14. [34]
  15. [35]
  16. [36]
  17. [37]
  18. [38]
I can do the same thing for websites such as sport-express.ru, football.ua, sports.ru, sport.ua, hotsport.ua, comments.ua/sport, ua.championat.com, sportbox.ru, ukrfootball.kiev.ua, dynamomania.com, ukrainianfootball.com as well as many others which will all have a lot of coverage of this tournament. Anything who follows football in Ukraine, Russia, and the former Soviet states would know of this tournament.--BoguSlav 20:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! Kills any argument for "deletion" (which weren't even made so far). 176.26.247.147 (talk) 08:37, 4 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) 04:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point! That tournament is definitely more important in terms of legacy in terms of impact then the Anglo-Italian Cup, the [Anglo-Scottish Cup]], the Audi Cup and the Premier League Asia Trophy, and DEFINITELY more important than the Telekom Cup, Trofeo Santiago Bernabéu and the Joan Gamper Trophy. I smell an anti-East European bias in those nominations to be honest. 176.26.247.147 (talk) 18:09, 5 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.
More