Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1894–95 World Championship


 * 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   no consensus. Ultimately, it comes down to significant coverage in reliable sources. There certainly is plenty of stuff in the papers about it, but no agreement on whether it is merely routine coverage or something substantial. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

1894–95 World Championship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * 1) Is the match notable enough to warrant a standalone article? The article refers to it as "an exhibition football match" between the English and Scottish champions. As such, does it have any more official status than any other inter-club friendly match?
 * 2)  Was this match really considered as a "world championship" when it was played, or has this title been conferred on it subsequently? The article on the London Hearts website refers to it as the "Unofficial World Championship", whereas the StatCat (Sunderland) website calls it a "Friendly match" between "the newly crowned champions of England and Scotland". A newspaper report from the time simply calls it "the meeting of the English and Scottish League Champions". The only article I can find that confers the title World Championship is a Sunderland fansite. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. 50% of the nominator's argument is an objection to the name, which is not a valid reason for deletion. Although it was an exhibition match, as it was in the late 19th century, there will be press coverage and it will be notable. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep 1. Despite the fact it's "only an exhibition match", at the time (when there were no international competitions on a club level), those games were the biggest club level games in the world! There is a reason those games were called the World Championship games, there is a reason the games attracted a big audience. Not only I think we should keep this article, I think we should have articles regarding the other World Championship Games on a club level (There were 3 more besides that one), because those games are a big part of football history and before FIFA those were THE international games. 2. There were many publications at the time which referred to those games as "world championship", and the fact that the hearts website refers to this game as the "unofficial world championship"... well at the time "unofficial" was the only type of World Championship you had, so it's perfectly fine. If you want, I wouldn't mind adding "unofficial" to the title of the article, though to be fair I don't see the point. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep historically interesting and important math that was a pre-cursor to international level competitions. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  12:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 100% agree. In fact, I think it would be good to write articles about the 3 other world championship games from that period (the ones won by Renton F.C. in 1888, Hibernian F.C. in 1887 and Heart of Midlothian F.C. in 1902). Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  13:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  13:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  13:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  13:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This was an international match at a time when inter5national competition was rare. The title is rather grander than the occasion, but is no worse that the "world series" baseball, which is essentially a US championship.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence that this was a notable, important or influential match. Saying "there will be press coverage" is moot; evidence notability please. GiantSnowman 17:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename wrt being called World Championship, this is akin to the Baseball world series which is just the US and for two years Canada. At the time the only real countries playing were England and Scotland, so yes it was a world championship. As for being one match, the world series is the best of seven games between two teams, so again is comparable. I would however suggest renameing to include the word football in the title somewhere e.g. 1894–95 Football World Championship or 1894–95 World Championship (football) Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's actually a great idea! That definitely should be done. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Arrogant and idiotic title. The namer assumes that this was the only world championship in that time period? If it gets kept, please move it to a more encyclopedic and informative title, so the reader knows it is not a hog calling contest,  spitting contest, or  yodelling competition. Edison (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I will add the word football in brackets afterwards. To be honest, didn't even think about it when creating the article. It was the only football world championship at the time, but football was not the only sport so good point. I just need to figure out how to do it. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Arrogant and idiotic title? Someone needs to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA, I think, and you're lucky the article creator either missed the aggressiveness, or is level-headed enough not to care. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Two comments - firstly, as it was a one-off match and did not span the whole season, it should just be "1895 world championship/whatever", in the same way as our articles on FA Cup finals are titled. And secondly, is there any evidence that it was actually billed as a world championship at the time? If not, then we shouldn't call it such.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the problem in the first comment. In boxing a world title is decided over one fight, and at the time the FIFA standards about how to decide who is the title holder were not developed yet. Regarding the second comment... if you write 1895 world championship on Google you have a lot of links about that specific game. It's true that this world championship game was unofficial, but to be fare, at the time nothing really was except the English and Scottish championship and cup. Also, even though the game was "unofficial", at the time no other game was called the world championship in football. Whenever a club level world championship was held, it was the same format: 1 game (except with the Hearts victory few years later which was held in two games because the first one finished 0-0), with the champions of England and Scottland competing for the title. That's the whole point, it wasn't a one off game, it's a format which was used at the time due to lack of other alternatives and for that reason is was the world championship. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand my first point. The match took place on one date in 1895, therefore there is no reason whatsoever to mention 1894 in the title, in the same way that we have 2012 UEFA Super Cup, not 2011-12 UEFA Super Cup, because the match only takes place in one year -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it! I used it because that's the title I saw online, but I think it varies so I will change it. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I moved the article from "1894-95 world championship" to "1895 World Championship (football)" as few users suggested. I agree that it needs to be more obvious it's football we are talking about therefore the change was a good idea! Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment In the British Newspaperarchive I can only find one reference to this match being a World Championship: The Sunderland Dailly Echo and Shipping Gazette 30 April 1895 page 4. "The championship of the world is now settled, and Sunderland are the champions...." "....By-the-way are there any medals for the championship of the world?" Other newspapers call it a match between the English and Scottish champions. I wouldn't call matches between Scottish and English clubs rare. In 1894-95 Rangers played against Sunderland, Everton (twice), Aston Villa, Notts County, Leicester and Newcastle. Cattivi (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether they're rare or not is irrelevant. A match between the Scottish and English champions at this point was almost a de-facto world championship (this isn't about the name) as there were literally 3 or 4 major leagues in the entire world at that point, and the English and Scottish ones were far in advance of any other. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC
 * When only one out of ten newspapers (a local one) calls a match a world championship, is that enough to call this a world championship? Renton were called world champions decades after the game was played, this isn't the case for Sunderland (before 1950)Cattivi (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what papers referred to it as World Championship, the fact is, there were papers which referred to it like that. No one referred to the game between Sunderland and Rangers as World Championship, that's why we don't have this discussion. Sunderland were referred to as World Champions for 6 years, until Hearts beat Tottenham and gained the title. Renton were called World Champions because they were the Scottish cup holders (no championship at the time) and they beat the English cup holders. Sunderland were referred to as World Champions for the same reason Hibernian and Hearts were, because they won the championship and beat another champion. That was the format for those type of games. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If this was true you would expect to find more than one newspaper report supporting this claim in the British Newspaperarchive The Renton-WBA game was actually called "Championship of the United Kingdom" and "Championship of the World" You can find more about it on page 11 West Bromwich Albion A Complete Record by Tony Matthews Breedon Books ISBN 1 873626 47 9. Sunderland The Complete Record by Rob Mason Mike Gibson and Barry Jackson ISBN 1 85983 472 8 doesn't mention this match at all. The 1902 "World Championahip game" wasn't a match between the league champions, it was a match between the cup holders. [[User:Cattivi|Cattivi] (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah but to be fair football games in the past didn't get as much exposure as today. EVERY football game got mostly local attention from the parts which take part in it. When England-Scotland were having their famous games at the time... well, they wrote about it only in England and Scotland. In Germany for example people didn't really know or care about it. It's even more localized on a club level. The fact is, there were newspapers referring to this game as the world championship. The fact they were "local" doesn't really matter. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A random example in Dutch (de Atleet 25 november 1893 go to page 5) There's also some English cycling news on that page. Cattivi (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence that this match is covered in enough detail in reliable sources to warrant keeping it as a standalone article. It may be appropriate to move some of the info to the respective club season articles. If it is decided a standalone article is merited then I don't think 'World Championship' should be in the article title, as per the info provided above by Cattivi. Eldumpo (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence that this match passes the general notability guideline either via contemporary or enduring non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I think too much is being read into a light-hearted reference in the Sunderland Echo; maybe that paper wouldn't have introduced the concept of "World Championship" had their local team lost? This was one of several friendly matches that Sunderland played in Scotland during that season: the StatCat page referred to by the nominator lists them on the left of the page, and describes this match as "a match between the newly crowned champions of England and Scotland." As also mentioned in the nomination, The Scotsman's report describes it just as a match featuring the English and Scottish champions. The English papers in general listed it in their fixtures and results sections under "Ordinary matches" or "Club matches", a heading that included friendlies, county senior cups, benefit matches and similar. The longest English report I can find (in a selection of papers available via the British Library 19th century newspaper collection; not possible to supply generally accessible URLs), is in the Sheffield Independent which over 5 sentences described it as a match between "the rival league champions" which "lost some of its importance from the fact that both teams were without several of their regular players" but was "a capital game". So it's a friendly for which neither club fielded a full-strength team, which didn't have an unusual level of coverage at the time, and has had approaching none since. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Struway2. Nothing notable about this friendly. Argyle 4 Life  talk  17:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep an important game for it's time. Did get media attention and was named by it as the match for the championship of the world. PC poet robot (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator: This was the first edit by User:PC poet robot, who has since been blocked for breach of WP's username policy. --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The match report in the Edinburgh Evening Times 29 April 1895 starts as follows: "The meeting of the league champions. Save for show purposes, such matches as are provided at the fag-end of a season by meetings of the English and Scottish League champions or the rival cup-holders are valueless." Cattivi (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Heart's website also referred to the game as the "Unofficial World Championship", and there were given references to different newspapers in the North-East that referred to it as the World Championship, so I think the article definitely qualifies. Maybe the name should be "unofficial world championship", but it's definitely an important match of the time that was referred to "championship of the world" for a reason. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Big keep. The sources from the time refer to the game as the world championship. The fact that those sources are mostly local doesn't matter. Long term even today this game is referred to as the world championship. The fact it was a champion-champion game, automatically made it the world championship and that was the reason why everyone called it "championship of the world". That also explains why so many people went to the game. Deleting this article would be ignorant. 81.171.159.172 (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: According to the match report, the reason for the size of the crowd (12,000) was "there being no other match of importance in town" – not exactly a ringing endorsement. Where are these "sources from the time" that keep being mentioned? Both Struway2 and Cattivi have access to online newspapers and neither have come up with anything other than the Sunderland Daily Echo claiming " Sunderland are the champions". In the absence of such sources, the match is no more than an end of season friendly, which has been over-hyped in recent times. Incidentally, the official Sunderland website page of Honour" doesn't mention this match, so if the club who won the match don't deem it of importance, why should Wikipedia? --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, the fact that the Sunderland Echo called it the World Championship is already a notable source. Second, the fact that there was "no other match of importance in town" doesn't exclude the fact that specific game was important. Again, when you write 1895 World Championship in Google what you get are mostly links referring to that game. Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As you suggest, I have Googled "1895 World Championship": on the first page, there are 10 entries; the first 4 are to Wikipedia. The rest refer to the 1895 World Championships of cycling, baseball, speedskating, bird shooting etc. Mmm? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, lets compare! I Google it (1895 football world championship). The first link is Wikipedia, which is fine! Many notable events or people get Wikipedia as the first link! I get, , . Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Its an encyclopaedic and notable topic. Rare competition at the time and cannot be compared to a modern day friendly in terms of notability or sourcing. Blethering   Scot  21:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - people keep referring to this as a "competition", but all the evidence from contemporary sources suggests that it was arranged simply as just another end-of-season friendly, and only afterwards did people start to say "oh, they beat the Scottish champions, so that must make them world champions"......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was referred to as "championship of the world" before that, but it was a friendly game. But many tournaments are "friendly", that doesn't make it less "big" (especially at a time when besides national tournaments most were "friendly"). Sunderland against Di Canio (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there actually any evidence it was billed in that way at the time as opposed to being described as such in more recent time.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2013 (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.