Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Suárez controversies


 * 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. Whether to break an subtopic out into a separate article is largely a subjective question, and opinions seem fairly evenly split here on whether it should be done in this case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Luis Suárez controversies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A series of 'incidents' do not add up to a notable, standalone topic; there are only really 4 such 'incidents' here and they are covered on the parent article already. Furthermore we have BLP to consider. My suggestion - delete. GiantSnowman 18:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - BLP violation as a heavily negatively slanted controversy article about a living person. It is also a content fork and contains far more detail than is required. Frankly, I'm dubious about Luis Suárez racial abuse incident being a sensible article to have either... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly shouldn't stay if this goes - depending on consensus here I will take that to AFD in due course. GiantSnowman 18:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly doesn't violate BLP: It's written from a neutral point of view (it can't be helped that he has done many negative things, this is all factual, you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise), it's clearly all verifiable by highly reliable sources, and there's no original research whatsoever because every single sentence has been sourced. The fact that each previous incident comes up when he has done something shows it all ties in together; for a start, Otman Bakkal is quoted in a section completely disassociated from the incident involving him, and the previous incidents always came up when talking about the others, that's why each ban was longer than the others. Also it's not a content fork, it's a split; I took into consideration the sheer volume of text necessary to fully expand each incident, because otherwise the main Luis Suárez article would be dominated by these four incidents and would become unreadable, and what is there currently is minor in regards to how big it was within his career - a full season worth of games banned for. And I'm not sure why incidents is in speech marks, it's highly disingenuous to suggest these aren't actual incidents. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - a significant, well-documented and widely discussed part of his career. Article split is within the guideline WP:Summary style. And the article is not "slanted", contrary to earlier opinion: Suárez is given ample text for his side of story. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Can easily be covered in the main Suárez article. No need for a content fork. Number   5  7  20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not content fork; this is Summary style for splitting long articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Put this is precisely the point of WP:SPLIT, they couldn't easily be covered in the main article. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Selective merge into Luis Suárez - Personally I see no need for a separate article when it can all be shoved on parent article. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Put this is precisely the point of WP:SPLIT, they couldn't easily be covered in the main article without detracting from everything else. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Grouping these incidents doesn't seem appropriate unless in the main Luis Suárez article. If the individual incidents are notable enough, they should have their own articles. If not, there's no need to go into too much detail in the main article. – PeeJay 22:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't just one incident though, it's a trend in the career that he has caused multiple controversies, such is that it would distract from everything else if this was implanted in the main article. Hence, WP:SPLIT. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly not everyone agrees. – PeeJay 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody has provided one specific guideline to the contrary either, at least not one that actually holds up to even minor scrutiny. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good thing it's up to an admin, and not you, to decide that. – PeeJay 00:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good thing an administrator, and not you, will be able to read that a grand total of zero people have provided sufficient reasons thus far. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Partial merge and Partial delete – The section on his abuse of Patrice Evra already has its own article, and his biting Giorgio Chiellini is already covered in List of 2014 FIFA World Cup controversies and in Luis Suárez; these sections can well be deleted. The incidents of him biting Otman Bakkal and Branislav Ivanović could well be merged into the Suárez article either as a subsection of #Style of play or as its own section on his controversies. This does not appear to me to be a true WP:SPLIT, as some of the information did not appear to have existed in Luis Suárez or any other article prior to the creation of this article, and WP:PROSPLIT would have required that any duplicated information be removed from the main article with appropriate notes and comments. This appears to me to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The racial abuse incident and the biting of Chiellini might meet WP:N by themselves because of the widespread coverage and wider social conversations and consequences, but that does not make every incident involving Suárez notable enough for a mention outside of his own article. — Jkudlick t c s 01:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying that the incidents involving Suárez have garnered widespread coverage and intertwining football consequences, thus are all relevant to each other? Perhaps a Wikipedia article could be created highlighting each incident and how each additional incident managed to gain mass media coverage and commentary, and how each additional incident gave the player increased bans and eventually forced the player to seek professional help because it had happened repeatedly? Good idea Jkudlick. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I said two specific incidents might meet WP:N because of the circumstances surrounding them and the subsequent coverage, but the other two do not. Taken as a whole, this article does not need to exist because the two incidents which might meet WP:N are already covered elsewhere, and the other two can easily be mentioned in the Suárez article. I'm not sure where you read that I stated all of his incidents are relevant when I stated that two sections can be deleted and two can be merged elsewhere. I've stated my opinion, you clearly have yours, and we'll leave it for the closing admin to decide. — Jkudlick t c s 02:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - RealDealBillMcNeal, you need to stop badgering the voters here. We get it, we know what your opinion is. You also appear to have a personal dislike for Suarez, given the article and your comments, so it's probably best to take a step back. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh the irony. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly. I questioned one Keep voter, because I genuinely cannot see how their claim that the diving things belongs in the article is sensible. You, however, have tried to badger every single delete or merge voter bar me... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (chat)  @ 18:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (commune)  @ 18:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (soliloquize)  @ 18:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable events which have received widespread coverage. This article should be expanded to include his diving controversies. IJA (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Receiving criticism for diving is a controversy now? *facepalm* Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - Repeated simulated diving and getting away with it most of the time is indeed controversial. IJA (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ... in your opinion. Considering that it is hard to prove each and every allegation of simulation, that's not very credible. Regardless of that, however, it is not a controversy in the style of the ones in this article, which are all isolated events. Indeed, although his perceived tendency to dive may be controversial, that does not make it a controversy... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - I'm not on about individual simulated diving events, I'm on about Suarez and simulated diving in general. Controversy is a noun and Controversial is an adjective. From the Oxford English Dictionary: Controversy - Prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. Just a few examples over a prolonged period:  Then there is the discussions and outrage of his simulated diving on social media. If you require any more examples, let me know. Regards IJA (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest here; the real controversy you pointed out is diving in general. What makes Suarez's diving any more controversial or notable than, for example, Christiano Ronaldo or Thomas Müller? — Jkudlick t c s 02:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it is any more notable, I'm just saying that there is a place for it on this article. IJA (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Two of the controversies could be individually notable, but they are already covered elsewhere (as I noted above) and don't need redundant articles. The other two incidents are only notable when taken in the context of the whole and are more suitably addressed in Suárez's article. — Jkudlick t c s 00:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Asides from the inherent BLP issues which present the individual in an unnecessarily negative light, this article is massive overkill. These are notable events and should be covered in reasonable detail in the playing career section of Suarez's article. However, they in no way define his career, nor are they in anyway the most significant events to have happened to him. This fork gives undue weight to them. Fenix down (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Disagree in many ways. His controversies do define his career. When reliable sources such as the BBC, CBS and the Daily Telegraph  all produce copy detailing these controversies I conclude they are notable. Even his recent biography is called "Luis Suarez: The Biography of the World's Most Controversial Footballer". I believe there is no better way for an encyclopedia to show this than to pull these controversies together in a well sourced and balanced article and this is it.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2015 (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.