Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Cup of Champions

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]

Super Cup of Champions

(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]
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]

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]