Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1887 World Championship (football)


 * 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. Despite all the walls of text from the nominator, there is clearly consensus to keep this article (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

1887 World Championship (football)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Reason In Vitrio (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC) 1. There is no evidence that anyone considered this anything other than a friendly match. The article cites Scottish newspapers not mentioning it as anything grander; I have read the Mail for that day and it does not mention a world championship, indeed, in the list of fixtures for the day, the top fixture is West Brom v Walsall Swifts in the Staffs Cup. An advert on the front page calls it a "great international match" and that is mere puff - the same advert includes fixtures with Notts Co and Dumbarton.

2. The adverts for the game are given equal prominence in the Birmingham media to matches such as Aston Unity v Excelsior and a follow-up match between Villa and Dumbarton.

3. The match preview in the Birmingham Mail describes Villa as playing three important matches - Hibs, Notts County, and Dumbarton, suggesting each was considered as important as the other; there is no hint at this being a 'world' championship. They are together considered the Easter programme and again given no more prominence than those of other clubs (6 April 1887, p. 4). (On the same page there is a merit table for the leading clubs in the country - the club at the top of that is Preston North End and the top Scots club is the Vale of Leven.)

4. The match report in the Birmingham Mail gives it less prominence than the Shropshire Junior Cup, which is standard for the time, when friendlies were always subordinate to competitive matches.

5. There is no suggestion of any prize, of any celebration, or of any claim to being even de facto world champions.

6. I cannot find any published source anywhere that declares this to have been a world championship (unlike the 1888 match between Renton and West Bromwich Albion).

The article is re-writing history to find something which does not exist. We cannot apply today's standards to the standards back then; after all, Queen's Park (Scottish Cup winners throughout the 1870s) regularly met the Wanderers (FA Cup winners throughout the 1870s) in friendlies but again nobody called those world championship matches.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, England,  and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you.
 * One other thought: the match was 1 week after the FA Cup final, so was arranged long before that match (as a return match after a friendly in January in Edinburgh). It was not organized AS a world title match. In Vitrio (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Having looked up the billing that you mention in point #2, which is available in HD within Wikipedia here, it is clear that the match had a higher billing than other matches that week: it is given twice the lines, and it states GREAT INTERNATIONAL MATCH and notes the fact that both sides are their current national cup holders. The other matches just have times/prices. So you can scratch that point, it was clearly noted as an 'international match' and this misrepresentation makes me wonder if you have some kind of agenda frankly. Again, no one is claiming that Aston Villa were the best side in the world in 1887 (though due to the size of the sport in those days they potentially were), it's just a loose title that was given to games of this ilk between English ans Scottish sides. The press did call them Champions of the United Kingdom  after the match on at least one occasion which is an alternate title of the Football World Championship page.
 * Please bring this to the talk page next time before jumping straight to deletion. Mountaincirque talk 15:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not a newspaper article - that's an advert. It's not an independent description and even with the sales puff from Villa placing it they do not call it a world championship match.  Instead it is part one of their Easter programme. "Great international match" is not a first-time term for a club match - Blackburn Rovers v Queen's Park in 1882 was called the same (Blackburn Weekly Standard, 11 November 1882).
 * The agenda here is someone back in 2014 trying to create a fake history for a world title that never existed; the creator's only entries all relate to this mythical title (and some Venezuelan tournament which is also of dubious notoriety). Why are you so insistent that it should stay when literally nobody at the time called it the 1887 World Championship - not even the participants - and apparently nobody in the entire history of humankind called it that until this very page was put up?  Isn't that the definition of "original research"?  Is the truth not important?
 * And as I said below the "Champions of the United Kingdom" is from BEFORE the match - it refers to the FA Cup win.
 * If nobody can find a contemporary source, then we have to concede that the page's existence is down to someone making it up in 2014, in which case it has to be deleted. Because:
 * -it cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources,
 * -thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed (nobody commenting so far has found a reliable source), and
 * -as it is basically a friendly match it does not meet the relevant notability guideline. In Vitrio (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * -as it is basically a friendly match it does not meet the relevant notability guideline. In Vitrio (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Still being written about more than 100 years later and was the precursor of further inter league matches. The victory caused media to describe Aston Villa as champions of the UK following this match, as stated in this book.-- Mvqr (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * None of those sources mentions this as a world championship match. Again they all back up the Renton v WBA match as the first touted as such.
 * There is not one contemporary source that I have found that talks about it being a world championship match. Describing it as such 100 years later is ahistorical. In Vitrio (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * According to this book, this led media to dub Aston Villa as "champion team of the United Kingdom" which is significant enough. And they're still writing about this over a hundred years later. The name of the 1887 match may have been inaccurate, but that's the name they choose. The Yankees in baseball still play the World Series every year, even though they don't invite Nippon Professional Baseball teams or other teams from the world.-- Mvqr (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, that book is inaccurate. The one source for "champion team of the United Kingdom" is from the Birmingham Post on 4 April 1887 - i.e. BEFORE this match - and refers to Villa winning the FA Cup ("the title which they earned on Saturday"), which was open to the entire UK.  And that was not unprecedented - the Blackburn Weekly Post called Rovers that in 1884.
 * Quite startling, in fact, looking back at the original sources, how poor some of these history books really are... In Vitrio (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever it was, it is still being covered over 100 years later. All your arguments so far might, ignoring the original research issue, support a rename or modification of some of the text of the article. However, these aren't arguments for notability. For notability, the existence of multiple, independent, reliable sources generated over a period spanning more than a hundred years prove notability.-- Mvqr (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not being "covered" over 100 years later; there is 1 source mentioning this as a world championship, and it post-dates this article.
 * The argument for notoriety requires multiple, independent, reliable sources over a 100 year period. None of them is reliable; I would submit independence is questionable, given that there is no source until after this article appears on wikipedia; and so far nobody has actually shown more than one source that says "this was a world championship match", which dates from 2021, and the other references to it as such are misreported.
 * Re-name it perhaps to "Friendly Match between Aston Villa and Hibernian from 1887", which would be accurate, and let's see if it is notable. No more so than the Preston v Hibs match the next season which WAS dubbed a world championship match. In Vitrio (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, the page has references, let's simply adjust the text to represent the points you make well above? The game is referenced in a number of modern sources, so deleting based on your research seems very heavy-handed to me. Examples from a quick Google Books search:,  Mountaincirque talk 11:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But that first source is inaccurate; this match was NOT arranged between the FA Cup and Scottish Cup winners, but by two clubs who later happened to win the FA Cup and the Scottish Cup. The second is obvious extrapolation.
 * Again, no original source refers to it as a world championship; it was a friendly between two prominent sides. It is fake history to declare it a world championship 130 years later.  May as well declare the original FA Cup to have been the World Cup while we are at it. In Vitrio (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. Having read through the page at Football World Championship, it is clear to me that this page should stand. The lead of that article makes it clear that these matches were between the leading sides of Scotland and England and that the title of the games did vary from year to year. This page discusses the game between the English Cup winners and the Scottish Cup winners of 1887 and as such it forms part of an ongoing series of invitational matches betweens the FAs that occurred over a 28-year period. By all means explain the fact that it is referred to as a 'great international match', that it was invitational etc. No-one really thinks that this is a competitive honour, it is not listed as such in any pages here or sources. However, it does form part of a series of games and has secondary sources and contemporaneous sources that raise its standing above other games of the time. Mountaincirque talk 11:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that page is dubious as well, it needs proper sorting because none of the matches before 1887 had any title other than anything informal dubbed by the media. If you went back to 1878 and told the Wanderers and Vale of Leven that they were playing for the world title they would have considered you bonkers.
 * And that page cites no source for this match being called a de facto world championship. I get the impression that this page is directly misleading authors today into calling this a world championship.  Their fault, of course, but I see no reason for perpetuating a falsehood. In Vitrio (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a fair title based on common usage across the whole series of matches in my opinion. I could see an argument to rename this page Aston Villa F.C. 3-0 Hibernian F.C which is the standard format for individual matches as per Manchester United F.C. 8–2 Arsenal F.C.. Then maybe you could calm down about the name. If you want to do that then please propose it in the talk page first to try for a consensus. There are way too many sources for this page to delete. Mountaincirque talk 15:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thing is, I could come up with a dozen sources for many matches in that era...does that make them notable? Every FA Cup semi for starters.  In context it was seen as less notable than the Shropshire Senior Cup final... In Vitrio (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources located above. GiantSnowman 18:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There are a number of publish book sources that talk about this match, it's an early match of across border football which was rather rare in the day. Yes it could do with a bit of work on the article, but the essence is there. Seems to just pass the basic bar for GNG in my opinion as an article and I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few more book sources to add. Govvy (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. "There are a number of publish book sources that talk about this match": name them.
 * 2. "it's an early match of across border football which was rather rare in the day": it wasn't. For starters the FA Cup was open to Scots clubs until the Scottish FA put their foot down in the mid-1880s.  I was researching something else, and, in the same week in January 1881, Dumbarton played Blackburn Rovers, Darwen, and Sheffield; Heart of Midlothian played Blackburn Rovers and Aston Villa; and Old Etonians played Queen's Park, Vale of Leven, and Edinburgh University (source: Leeds Mercury, 7 Jan 1881).  Nobody was thinking of cross-border matches as anything other than matches between clubs, not as representative of associations.  That's just one random week a few years before.  Indeed the whole point of the reference to "champions of the United Kingdom" refers to the FA Cup being open to Welsh and Irish clubs (and Scots clubs, if they were willing to risk SFA sanction). In Vitrio (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that the local press in Birmingham noted this as a GREAT INTERNATIONAL MATCH and noted the fact that they were both cup-winners, whereas all the other games you list were just your run-of-the-mill friendlies between sides that had no claim to be the leading sides of their nations.
 * As I suggested in another reply you can propose a rename of the page to simply the name/score of the game if you want to which would be less controversial than being so deletionist here when, as a number of senior editors have pointed out to you, there is enough here for GNG, even though it is not perfect. You seem to have a conspiracy theory in mind, all World Championship is in this context is a common-use title for these matches between cup and league-winners, so even on that basis alone, regardless of naming, it would be included as it is undoubtable that they were their respective cup-holders when they met. Mountaincirque talk 12:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The local press did NOT note it as a Great International Match; that was an advert. Nobody in the media called it that (unlike Blackburn-Queen's Park earlier).  This match is not notable in context. It was slightly freakish that both clubs won their national cups after the friendly was arranged, but there were at least a dozen other such matches earlier, and none of them has a wikipedia page.
 * There is no point in renaming the page because that would simply prove what I am saying, it is not notable enough. It is a one-off friendly.  None of the senior editors commenting here have come up with a valid argument for keeping it here; I have shown that the arguments about its notoriety are plainly wrong or based on mis-reported sources.  It is likely that at least one recent book suggests the page's existence is misleading people now.
 * And one other point is that this may have been a match between the professional Cup winners, but the best side in the world in 1887 was almost certainly neither of them, but the Corinthian club, which at the time did not take part in competitive matches. If you want a notable match with a much better claim for being the world championship of 1887, then the Queen's Park v Corinthian New Year's Day match was held before 100,000 (sic) at Hampden Park, and resulted in a Corinthian win.  Which shows the problem in attaching an anachronistic title to - I repeat - a one-off friendly.
 * The simple point is NO SOURCE CALLS THIS A WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP MATCH so it should not be called that; and if you take the title away all one is left with is a friendly.
 * I am not being deleitionist. I am being accurate.  The page is misleading and I wonder why some want to keep it. In Vitrio (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be getting a bit shouty which isn't really helping, there have been a few good pieces of advice and sources posted above that you could use to improve this page but you seem set on DELETE even though it's clear that this page is going no-where, other than being improved by our joint efforts.
 * I agree that there are no contemporary sources that call this specifically a World Championship. However, what there are sources for are the fact that games between the cup/league winners of Scotland/England were called World Championship games in the Victorian era, this was just one of that series games - and they were all exhibition/friendly matches. It's possible that there is some 'back contamination' of recent sources but that needs to be properly unravelled. Mountaincirque talk 10:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why it's not suitable as an article; none of these games was set up as "Cup winners v Cup winners". Wanderers v Queen's Park was a regular fixture regardless of how they did in the cups (albeit Wanderers often cried off because QP kept beating them).  Corinthian v QP similarly.
 * So wikipedia should not be picking on one random game and elevating it into something that it was not. In period this was not as crucial a match as, say, an FA Cup semi.  Also by this time Scots clubs were struggling against English because the Scots were still anti-professional (hence SFA banning them from playing against pros in the FA Cup).
 * Otherwise the logic is to bring out all of the other matches as well and that becomes ridiculous. It seems a solution in search of a problem.  "We have all these sources."  A majority of Cup matches have more sources.  To pick one from the same season at random, Liverpool Stanley v Halliwell has different reports in the Liverpool Mercury, Liverpool Daily Post, and Athletic & Football Field, the Sheffield Independent and the Birmingham Post.  Same day incidentally as Preston 26-0 Hyde - which does NOT have a page... In Vitrio (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So wikipedia should not be picking on one random game and elevating it into something that it was not. In period this was not as crucial a match as, say, an FA Cup semi.  Also by this time Scots clubs were struggling against English because the Scots were still anti-professional (hence SFA banning them from playing against pros in the FA Cup).
 * Otherwise the logic is to bring out all of the other matches as well and that becomes ridiculous. It seems a solution in search of a problem.  "We have all these sources."  A majority of Cup matches have more sources.  To pick one from the same season at random, Liverpool Stanley v Halliwell has different reports in the Liverpool Mercury, Liverpool Daily Post, and Athletic & Football Field, the Sheffield Independent and the Birmingham Post.  Same day incidentally as Preston 26-0 Hyde - which does NOT have a page... In Vitrio (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.