Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Suárez controversies (2nd nomination)

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Suárez controversies

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

This was closed as no consensus three years ago and I am thinking (hoping) our BLP standards have changed enough since then to make this article non-compliant with our current expectations.

Some claimed it was a WP:Split, but we don't even have a controversy section (quite rightly) in the main article.

It is also a lot of WP:synth. You can't just collect a couple of incidents and lump them together to create a negative hit pieces. Notable controversies will have there own page, semi notable ones can be mentioned at the main article and non-notable ones should not be on here at all.

I looked to see if there were any other articles that highlighted an individuals controversies in such a way[1] and virtually all are redirects to the main article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough coverage in mainstream sources to provide ample cited information and justify the split from Suarez's bio. A number of the sources specifically refer to "controversies" and refer to Suarez as "controversial" so WP:SYNTH ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources") does not apply. This article is certainly not a "negative hit piece" - it sticks to the facts and freely mentions the points-of-view of Suarez and those who have supported him. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What split? This was created by an editor with BLP issues[2] as a stand alone article.[3] It needs to survive as a stand alone article and the very title is a WP:BLP violation. AIRcorn (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the creator may have done on other articles is not relevant here as this article contains no BLP violations that I can see. As I stated in my !vote, the article contains ample cited information (so no BLP violation) and a number of the sources specifically refer to "controversies" and refer to Suarez as "controversial" (no BLP violation in the title. The article is a valid content split from the Luis Suarez bio, regardless of what any of us think of the creator's possible intentions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It speaks to motivation. Being able to source something does not mean it can't be a BLP violation. Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NPOV are two different policies for a reason. Again there is no content split, it was started as a stand alone article. If fact the racial abuse section has its own article. If this was a "List of Controversial incidents involving Luis Suárez" article then we could claim it was not synth, but it would still have the same BLP issues. BLP and Neutrality trumps most things around here. AIRcorn (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated in my comments already, there's no reasonable claim that this article is a violation of BLP or SYNTH. And it clearly is a split being that it is an expansion of certain specific aspects of the life and times of one Luis Suarez. BLP and neutrality are extremely important and this article is in violation of neither. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Instead of commenting on the article creator and whatever problems he may have been causing (as this encyclopedia belongs to everyone that can be rectified) I will bring up WP:CRITS: "Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section". These incidents can and already are interwoven in the main Luis Suárez article. Looking in the examples brought up in search by Aircorn, there are Good Articles on Madonna and Eminem - two of the most controversial pop musicians - in which the controversies have been woven into the prose rather than split off. Also, consider how there are not articles or even sections on the controversies of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: instead, again, the incidents are mentioned in the relevant place along with the reaction. Harambe Walks (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article. As shown above, specific articles on "controversies" about people are heavily depricated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:I agree with JPL that this article should be deleted and summarized into the parent article. As a lover of football for many years, when I think of Suarez, what comes to mind is a clinical forward with deadly finishing. Reality check: Will you call Suarez a controversial football player? The answer is obviously "NO". The controversial incidents of his career are not really "controversies" per se. The biting incident was more of a biological trait that he needed to work on. The racial incident would have qualified as a real controversy, but it was not confirmed. Suarez has played with many black players in the past, and it has never sprung up. His clash with Evra might not really be racially-inclined. If he is involved in another controversy before his career ends, then I will be fine with keeping the article as it is well-written but for now I don't see him as a controversial soccer player just yet to warrant an article. People like Donald Trump, Mugabe, Lindslay Lohan, etc are examples of individuals that should have a controversy article, not Suarez.HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not merit separate article. Giant Snowman 12:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The biting incidents are notable and are worthy of mention in the player's article, as they already are, since they are incidents that doe not occur widely in football. There is no need for a separate article, especially one that lumps together a number of other admittedly distasteful issues. Similar articles could be produced for a number of players but are not as they give undue weight to the incidents giving the impression that Suarez is more widely known for controversies than football. Fenix down (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I once downloaded a video of Suárez's greatest plays, and it was only three mega bytes. More seriously though, the article in Suárez himself is not so large that this breakout is required. Better to keep all the biographical details on a single page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:47, 20 January 2018 (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.