It was 4-2 advantage for keep. No reasonable arguments for deletion were shown. Argument for keep were not analyzed. Big coverage in Russian/Ukrainian media, not only in sports media, for example see [1][2][3] (congratulations from President of Ukraine) etc (many links in the articles). Best clubs of the leagues took part in it. Potentially impact to create the United Russia-Ukraine league in future [4]. NickSt (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possibly the closing admin, Secret, hasn't been contacted over this which is a pity because maybe some things could have been sorted out. The AFD was closed "no consensus for parent article delete seasons",[5] and later changed by an IP to "Keep, the result for the season pages was Delete".[6] Also, the edit comment on the "main" article when the AFD tag was removed was "no consensus".[7] Although the 2013 and 2014 articles were added right after the main article was nominated, no one seems to have mentioned more than an unspecified single article and the nomination doesn't distinguish between them. The references given in the AFD seem to refer to the 2013 match. So, I can't see how the closer decided to delete some and keep (by no consensus) another. All round a very confusing discussion. Thincat (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - there was definitely no consensus for deleting anything there. I don't see a single shred of justification based on the discussion to say that there was a consensus towards justifying the seasons. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just because you disagree with the opposing arguments is no reason to state, "no reasonable arguments for deletion were shown." In point of fact, stating that there were no links to coverage in reliable sources is an eminently reasonable justification for deletion. Mischaracterizing AfD discussions is a poor argument for overturning. --Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)04:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody said anything like "no links to coverage in reliable sources". The questions raised were whether coverage was "significant" or "enough". The views expressed on both sides were subjective. However, I agree that the arguments for deletion do not seem self-evidently unreasonable.Thincat (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD nominator said these tournaments were, "not significantly covered in reliable sources". That is a reasonable, policy-based argument for deletion. Ignoring that does both the process and the nominator a disservice I thought ought to be mentioned. --Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)16:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good call by the closer. Note that it was a weak decision to delete, with the closer noting that advocates for keeping the article failed to bring forward more significant sourcing. I am sure the closer will engage reasonably with any editor who now can bring forward more sources, or maybe even work on a userfied copy. I don't see any attempts at discussion so far. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Given that the closing admin specifically mentions the keep !votes in closing remarks, the claim that they were not analysed does not hold up. Deleted !votes were policy based, while several (though not all) of the keep !votes failed to provide any particular reason for keeping. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
