Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of confederation and inter-confederation club competition winners

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 delete. Michig (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of confederation and inter-confederation club competition winners[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I view this list as WP:OP. The lead claims the "mass media" has "drawn up" these lists before. I see no such reliable sources to indicate such a list and the bulk of the sources in the references list only link to FIFA articles (i.e. first party source) to prove what competitions are considered official and which ones aren't. I see no third party list to verify this list. MicroX (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. MicroX (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks to be WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 09:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This list is a global version of this and this one. Before cancel this page, you should request deleted the others and box like this because these information have exactly the same problems (UEFA does a similar list parcially, but the CONMEBOL not, are susceptible to polarization of the media, etc). The media have made such lists for 20 years but generally includes exclusivelly European and South American teams. The only "original" in this article was include the African and clubs of the rest of the world...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You should take a look at WP:SYNTH. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In addition, the three articles that you cited can be put up for discussion. --MicroX (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - But if the media sources that explicitly make mention of this classification omit some tournaments, including others who really are not official value and consider exclusively Europe and South America as "planet football", how do we proceed?--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know what you are trying to say. Also, what "media" sources? Provide some for us that explicitly aggregate global trophy wins. --MicroX (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said, the media are doing this kind of lists as we read here, here and here. While the media are biased and often instrumentalized anything to sell copies or gain rating, this is not original research. As I said, the only "original" in this list was limited to the same parameter applied for Milan and Boca (the pointers in the list with 18 titles althrough they have won really 21): confederal titles and FIFA Club World Cup for the rest of cases and include other clubs confederations (often ignored by the media).--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Those sources virtually give a count for individual clubs. It isn't an entire list. They are also counting Barcelona's 3 Fairs Cup titles which are excluded from the list and the exclusion is justified with the numerous UEFA and FIFA documents that do not recognize the tournament on the same level as the UEFA Champions League, Europa League, etc. It turns into a mess of WP:SYNTH. --MicroX (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After finally deciphering the lead paragraph, I have determined that the entire premise of this article is spurious. There is no basis for this article in the "mass media", as the article claims, and I'm not even sure most of the competitions listed on the page fit the description in the title. In fact, the title suggests that the page should name the winners of each competition, not just the competitions themselves. This is flawed on many levels. – Pee Jay 23:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a horrible mess. No evidence this has been dealt with as a single topic, so it qualifies as WP:SYNTH. C 679 07:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a hot mess this is. A fine candidate for WP:LISTCRUFT. "A couple of editors on Wikipedia have drawn up a list of confederation and inter-confederation club competition winners" would be a better first sentence. Less said about "ordered by an overall quantitative value in descending mode," the better. Walls of Jericho (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.