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. postdlf (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

This was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies as listcruft and for BLP reasons. It has now been recreated in what is claimed to be a better-sourced version. It was then speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. A discussion about this at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 8 was inconclusive. I'm therefore referring the article to AfD to determine whether it should still be deleted. This is a procedural nomination, I'm neutral. Sandstein 20:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as I said in the first AFD there were no controversies of note and this re-created 'better' version does not change my opinion. I'd advise SALTing to prevent any further re-creations. Giant Snowman 06:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: No controversies of note? I. Don't. Think. So. Perhaps you might want to read said article again. Asoccer maniac (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re: The claim was made above that no controversies of note exist. However the article has provided ample references to the contrary. Moreover, the president of FIFA, in the midst of said outcry, had to come out to reassure the world of the integrity of the competition. This is does not strike me as insignificant or unnotable. Asoccer maniac (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first AFD deleted for reasons other than poor sourcing. The appeal to DRV that the sourcing of this second iteration is improved is therefore an invalid reason for restoring and my speedy delete should stand. SpinningSpark 08:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: So exactly what was it deleted for? BLP, or something else? Asoccer maniac (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re: The reason for the first AfD still has not been given (as far as I am aware). Asoccer maniac (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I am also nominating the similar List of 1998 FIFA World Cup controversies. SpinningSpark 08:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There have been no significant changes from the original. It fails WP:GNG and is a case of WP:LISTCRUFT. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Why is this a LISTCRUFT and not notable when most of the other articles in its class are not? WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST? Asoccer maniac (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Re: Will not discuss significance now. Instead, simply want point out that many of the other articles in this category would also fall down on the above criticisms. I think the prospective deletion debates would be far more difficult than the present one if they were each motioned for deletion based on the weight of just this (yes, this leaves me open to WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, but what the hell. I suspect it would not be of (much) use in such debates). Asoccer maniac (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re: Re: I'm back to comment about the matter of "differences of significance". This depends a lot on what counts as "significance" or how it is described. In some sense there is little difference; the article is still skeletally the same - qualitatively. Quantitatively, however, there is a world of difference between the present revision (11,516 bytes) and 16 July deleted version (4,677 bytes). Asoccer maniac (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wish to note that so far all of the above (me and the nominator excluded) were involved in the original deletion discussion, and have repeated their recommendations despite the revision. While they all have right to not change their minds I will be engaging said users and asking them to clarify their reasoning, and quite possibly providing arguments or evidence to highlight any flaws I see. It may not be enough to save the article(s) or shift consensus, but it will at least show any irrelevant policies, bad arguments or incorrect/misleading information were not unchallenged. Asoccer maniac (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that these "controversies" are minor for the most. this is a classic example of WP:SYNTH, drawing together a number of disparate sources to create an article when there is actually little in the way of reliable coverage discussing the notion of 2002 WC controversies as a subject in itself. also leads to inherent WP:OR issues concerning what is / isn't a controversy. Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points. Although, however, a few things to remember. This article is a "list". First of all this makes it unlikely to be found as an exact phrase. Second, many of the matches and incidents described herein are notable in their own right, in the same way people remember for example, the hand of God, and the ghost goal in 66. These are seldom lumped together with other incidents of the same tournament. These are often talked about in general controversies about world cups and/or referees. Also, (as experience from disambiguation and other naming conventions for articles suggest) somethings are "important" but lack a clearly defined name, which the article authors and editors must decide. However despite the above, google searches (unquoted) for List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies and 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies give about 153,000 results and 235,000 results respectively. Cheerio. Asoccer maniac (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having read the article, it looks to me like it can be basically summed up as "Many people thought the referreeing wasn't very good. Here are some examples of poor referreeing..." (Yes, there's the "other" section, but that seems more like a fig leaf to justify how the article isn't just about referreeing when it essentially is.) You could probably create a similar article for many high level sporting events, and not just in soccer either, (I feel pretty sure we could make some decently-sourced articles of this sort on some of the MLB playoffs if we wanted to) but I don't think we really need to create separate articles to document all the bad officiating calls. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage anyone to who wanted to write about MLB controversies (or such like) do so, so long as their article is well referenced and complies with (as much as possible/reasonable) WP policies, but I take the hint that the above user does not agree. As for the other point, most controversies in major football (soccer) competitions like the WC and Euro tend to involve referee (performances) and (player) discipline - just look at the other articles in its category. Note that from now I will not write about anybody directly till the end of this (current) debate. Asoccer maniac (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge just the first paragraph into the main article on the tournament, get rid of everything else. There does seem to have been some controversy over the standard of refereeing in the tournament, but this can be covered by a single paragraph in the main article, there is no need to detail every single incident -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2014 (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.