Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of world club champions in association 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  20:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

List of world club champions in association football

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See here for reference.

The Intercontinental Cup was clearly not a world championship. This has come from numerous times by FIFA and they gave their reasons (very valid ones at that). For example, the Afro-Asian Championship could also claimed to be a world championship just for having two confederations coming together.

Seeing the above information, and the little relevance in having this, I propose this list be deleted. God Football (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I strongly disagree with the proposed deletion. The article emphasizes that the symbolic title of "world champion" which were referred all the twenty-five Intercontinental Cup winners from 1960 to 2004 was granted de facto and, precisely, FIFA is the first governing body that points that in its institutional mass media and, especially, in its official documents like this (cf. p. 62). Here nobody is inventing anything or exposes theories like as some published in Wikipedia. In the article its mentioned the title (name someone champion it's just that), not the competition (s) itself (s) and before it was created the FIFA Club World Cup, the only competition in association football history in which that recognition was related was the Intercontinental Cup/Toyota Cup.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note an editor copy/pasted another editor's comments from the article talk page to here. It doesn't work that way. I've removed the pasted comments. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've now completed the second and the third step of the AfD-process, and I suggest that the nominator read WP:AFDHOWTO before nominating an article for deletion next time. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree with the deletion. Read Dantetheperuvian's argumentations and how weak and false they are. First of all, he himself fancied the "concept" of "de facto world champions",  a concept which is not present in any  relevant source related to football at all. He simply shows a dicitionary definition of the "de facto" expression but shows no relevant source related to football (FIFA, UEFA, CONMEBOL) speaking of "de facto champions" of anything. This stuff of "de facto world champions" is something that this Dantetheperuvian fancied in his head and cannot be taken seriously.

It must be pointed out that no one here is denying the fact that the IC was a very relevant soccer trophy, official at UEFA and CONMEBOL, and a forerunner to the FCWC. All this are facts. However, the thing is just that. Nothing more. UEFA and CONMEBOL do not have jurisdiction over worldwide soccer (only FIFA has it) and therefore UEFA and CONMEBOL cannot give "world level legitimacy" to competitions. Besides, being "a forerunner to something" is not the same as being "that same something": the fact that one thing is forerunner to another does not mean at all that they have the same status or worth or value or importance. The fact that the IC was a forerunner to the FCWC does not mean that they have the same status or worth or importance. I will not make "copy and paste" here. Check the Portuguese-wikipedia article on the IC and you will find tons os links (in English) to the most valuable sources (FIFA, UEFA, CONMEBOL, BBC, Toyota, Japanese FA, several if not most IC-Winning clubs as Manchester and Real Madrid) making clear that the FCWC has a bigger dimension and is considered far more relevant than the IC.

All this was already indicated to Dantetheperuvian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup

Another example of text that was not listed inside the link above but I remember it now- FIFA making clear that the FCWC has a bigger dimension than the IC- http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=95645.html

Other examples:

On its web-site, FIFA tells its official documents (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/index.html, http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/doclists/matches.html) apart from the other parts of its web-site, implying that the latter parts are not its official views. The only one FIFA official document to mention the Intercontinental Cup (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompcwc/01/15/71/66/fcwc2012_kit.pdf) does NOT use the word "world" to refer to the Intercontinental Cup. In this document the word "world" is limited to the FIFA Club World Cup. The Intercontinental cup is mentioned as a predecessor to the FIFA Club World Cup but is NOT mentioned as being itself a club world title.

A UEFA official document saying that FIFA did NOT authorise the Intercontinental Cup: http://pt.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/uefaorg/Publications/01/59/87/45/1598745_DOWNLOAD.pdf

For those who read Spanish, three times on which FIFA openly referred to the Intercontinental Cup as a non-World and non-FIFA Cup: http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1960/09/05/pagina-2/1384381/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental and http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1967/03/16/pagina-8/931136/pdf.html?search=Intercontinental and http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1966/07/27/pagina-6/936416/pdf.html?search=intercontinental

Here FIFA refers to the Intercontinental Cup as a symbolic world title (http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=95645.html) ;

in a July 28th 2005 text (about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup) called "Japan welcomes the world with open arms" on its web-site, FIFA writes "Brought up watching the annual Europe-South America clash, Japanese fans are counting the days to the kick off of the true world club showdown", therefore FIFA makes clear the difference between "Europe-South America clash" (IC) and "the true world club showdown" (refering to the FIFA Club World Cup). therefore FIFA makes clear that only the FIFA Club World Cup is the true world club showdown.

also in a July 28th 2005 text (about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup) called "Continental champions prepare for Tokyo draw" on its web-site, FIFA writes "the Toyota Cup, which superseded the Intercontinental Cup in 1980, has been revamped by FIFA to reach out to all confederations and associations across the globe so the winners may truly be regarded as the best club side in the world", therefore FIFA makes clear that only the FIFA Club World Cup truly indicates the world club champion.

(http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=107/edition=4735/news/newsid=99485.html)

And, as I said, there are many many more sources at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup and also at the IC and FCWC Portuguese-Wikipedia articles.

You see: in many texts FIFA makes very clear how bigger the FCWC is relative to the IC, and Dantetheperuvian keeps trying to "equalise" the IC and FCWC based on one single FIFA text.

As you will see through the link  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup, Dantetheperuvian has already been informed all of this, and he intentionally decided to ignore it. He is not here impartially and honestly. He has behaving dishonestly on this matter, ignoring all these sources and trying to "mingle oranges with apples" (he intentionally mixes different concepts and aspects of the thing in order to confuse the debate and enforce his views). This Dantetheperuvian cannot be taken seriously - he is just a supporter of Juventus who insists on the sheer lie that the IC was equivalent to the FCWC because his Juventus only got the IC while its Milano rivals (AC Milan and Internazionale) won both the IC and the far-more-relevant FCWC. It is pointless to discuss with a person like him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer historian (talk • contribs) 12:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

See the Portugues-Wikipedia article on the IC: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Intercontinental. See the links on it: UEFA, CONMEBOL, FIFA, Japanese Football Association, Toyota, several IC-winning clubs such as Ac Milan and Internazionale Milano, FC Barcelona, BBC's Tim Vickery's articles on BBC and UEFA-archive sites, Korean//Mexican/Spanish/CostaRican newspaper sources, and etc. All of them agree the IC was a predecessor to the FCWC. None of them says that the IC was a "world title" or "value equivalent" to the FCWC. Perhaps the IC was a "de facto world championship" in Dantetheperuvian's cheap talk, but not in the real world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer historian (talk • contribs) 12:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * — Soccer historian (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - note to closing admin, it appears that the nominator and  are the same editor - they have tried to hide that fact. GiantSnowman 17:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, I am fairly neutral, having raised questions myself in the past (answered at some length on the talk page) about the applicability of the title to winners of competitions other than FIFA, if only because I absolutely refuse to allow a new editor to get his way by so incredibly rudely insulting an editor of long term good standing. God football has edited with exceeding arrogance on numerous pages in the last week or so, and the even newer editor seems to me to quack.  If is is determined that the title should not be back dated, then change of article title would be far more appropriate than deletion. Kevin McE (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: - The articles of opinions that the "IP" and cyberfriends "Soccer Historian" and, more insistently, "God Football" published discrediting the Intercontinental Cup, besides being obviously biased, exclusively represent the point of view of the authors, not those of their newspaper (that makes only editorial signed by the director himself), while the FIFA's Activity and Statistical Reports, among others, are the Federation's official documents and in all of it is referred the Intercontinental Cup/Toyota Cup as the same official competition organised jointly by UEFA and CONMEBOL from 1960 to 2004, which categorically denies this theory and this other. In addition, these documents only eats the qualifying tournament predecessor FIFA Club World Cup, disqualifying this other theory. Also, in various articles published in the FIFA/UEFA/CONMEBOL institutional media that competition was referred to as "world title" and all its winners as "world champions" (Blatter said the same thing to FIFA Executive Committee before the 2005 Club World Cup, the first held after the discontinuation of the Intercontinental Cup), so it's not my invention to favor someone or something. Now if there are doubts about these articles published on the official website of these organizations, reject these media as sources for the articles of Club World Cup and the Intercontinental Cup and we just say what official documents, which are the same as I posted in useless discussions on the Intercontinental Cup, the Club World Cup and the request for mediation.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: - Once more, proving how dishonest he is, Dantetheperuvian intentionally tries to confuse things before readers, playing dirty as he has done all over the debate.  From my part, I do NOT deny the facts that: 1- Intercontinental 1960-1979 and Toyota 1980-2004 are the same competition in all aspects ; 2- it is official competition under UEFA and CONMEBOL auspices ; 3 - it is considered by FIFA as the (sole) predecessor to the Fifa Club World Cup. I DO agree these are facts. HOWEVER, these facts do NOT qualify the Intercontinental Cup (let's call it IC for short) as having the same "world cup value" of the FIFA Club World Cup (let´s call it FCWC for short). The mere fact that the IC is a predecessor to the FCWC does NOT mean that both have the same "world cup value". After all, a "predecessor to something" does NOT  necessarily have the same value/worth/importance/dimension of that specific something. To begin with, Dante insists in using two expressions that exist nowhere, in no source at all : "de facto world club champions" and "de jure world club champions". These "concepts" are found in no source at all as they are the result of Dante's imagination. Second, Dante bases his idea that the IC was a "de facto world club championship" on news texts on FIFA's site , while there are many other texts also on the very same FIFA site that make clear that the IC did not have the same value/worth/importance/dimension of the FCWC (see the IC talk page) . Not only on the very FIFA site, but from many sites (UEFA, CONMEBOL, etc). Third, and most important: The FIFA Club World Cup  Statistical Kit, the only citation to the IC among FIFA official documents, says that the IC merged to the FCWC in 2005, and says ONLY THAT. As Dante is dishonest, he always cites the  FIFA Club World Cup  Statistical Kit to "prove" his point that the IC was a "de facto world club championship", but in reality the only things this document says are that the IC was endorsed by UEFA and CONMEBOL and that it merged in 2005 to the FCWC. At no point at all the FIFA Club World Cup Statistical Kit says that the IC was either "world championship" or "de facto world championship" or anything like that. What happens here, in reality, is the following: Dante is a staunch supporter of Juventus which got the IC while its rivals (AC Milan, Internazionale) got both the IC and the more-relevant FCWC;  Dante deliberately lies and distorts facts in order to try to "equalise" the value/worth/importance/dimension of the IC (possessed by his beloved Juventus) to the value/worth/importance/dimension of the FCWC (possessed by Juve rivals).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer historian (talk • contribs) 02:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As Dante has now decided to cite Mr Blatter, I would like to show Blatter stating (to 2 Brazilian newspapers) that two-continent-limited competitions (such as the IC) cannot be considered world titles (one of them shows FIFA faxes in English language with the mentioned statement): http://acervo.estadao.com.br/pagina/#!/20001019-39083-nac-0033-esp-e3-not/busca/Toyota+Fifa+Mundial e http://www.gazetaesportiva.net/noticia/2012/12/campeonatos-mundial-de-clubes-fifa-2012/em-2000-fifa-confirmou-a-gazeta-esportiva-corinthians-1-campeao.html. Actually, see the FCWC talkpage: this information was alerady showed to Dante, but he tehn dismissed them. In his "great intelectual honesty", Dante only takes into consideration the FIFA views when they fit his ones.


 * Comment Well that's enough of that. If you make any more personal attacks on Dantetheperuvian, you will be blocked indefinitely. Discuss this like a grownup, starting now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A last Comment: - I note that the first Soccer Historian's link is unreadable due to "subscription" and, from the second link, that was a response signed by a member of the FIFA media department in 2000, the same group in charge of writing all those "contradictory" articles available in its official web and FIFA World magazine which the Intercontinental Cup/Toyota Cup title is referred as "world title", to a Brazilian newspaper. Also, I remind that user that the "symbolic title" conferred by FIFA is FIFA World Champions since 2000, which is not the same as simply saying "World Champions" although both represent the same planet and, though curiously Blatter admitted the validity of that title, FIFA's official documents explicitly point out that the title of "world champion" who was known all the 25 Intercontinental Cup/Toyota Cup winners ( and I speak for the assigned title, not by the competition whose value insist to discredit with your theories) was "valid" and for that reason, this article should be keeped. To conclude this, I remind Soccer Historian (and cyberfriends IP, God Football et al) discuss here only about the propost of cancellation of this article, so I beg they not fill this page with the same useless points of views.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - agree with Kevin, the issue here appears to be content as opposed to notability - AFD isn't the place for that kind of discussion, the article talk page is. GiantSnowman 14:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This nomination has nothing to do with the notability or otherwise of the subject. It appears to be the latest forum for a content dispute conducted in an unedifying manner that does Wikipedia no credit. Suggest closing early. Struway2 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I do not believe that we should be grouping lists of competition winners together merely because they represent the de facto world champions for each year. We have a list of winners of the Intercontinental Cup at Intercontinental Cup (football) and a list of winners of the FIFA Club World Cup at List of FIFA Club World Championship and Club World Cup finals. There is no official link between the two competitions, but we should put a wikilink from one page to the other and that should be enough. – PeeJay 17:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What do we do with this page?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that page should exist either. To combine winners of multiple competitions, a lot of which occurred concurrently, is silly IMO. Plus, the Mitropa Cup for example didn't even encompass the whole of Europe, just a few countries in the south-east of the continent. – PeeJay 18:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, Could you request the deletion of that page?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I will once this AfD is decided. – PeeJay 14:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: the nominator has since been indefinitly blocked for "disruptive editing against consensus". - The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 5 January 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.