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. As a POVFORK I have discarded all the spas Spartaz Humbug! 05:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Abu Dhabi Final Lap Scandal[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The Abu Dhabi Final Lap Scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though sourced, this article is heavily biased and opinionated. Much of the information it includes is already covered in the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix article in a much more nuanced, informative and neutral fashion. Not only is this article heavily skewed in its bias, it is also written in a largely unacademic manner, reading more like a fan wiki than a properly structured Wikipedia article. Democfest (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my reasoning: this article is completely (and, in my view, irrepairably) riddled with original research and takes a highly, highly partisan stance. It uses questionable sources throughout to present its own narrative rather than any balanced or global view. Of course any article can be completely re-written, but these changes have not given me any optimism for finding usable content here. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Simanos:, may I be forgiven if I find it a little suspicious that an account that had not edited in 2 years before this !vote, with no prior history of editing in the motorsports topic area, or at XfD's, has come here to literally parrot a 1-edit IP? Is it fair to ponder out loud the possibilities of this account being compromised? -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 06:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgive you. I was too lazy to write more on my own and besides it expressed most of my thoughts. I just corrected one bit (do not merge). I didn't think I'd have to prove who I am, I just logged in cause another person said not to acknowledge opinion of IPs. I made changes in Wikipedia without login for a long time (rare changes), changing computers sometimes you lose passwords and are too lazy to get them back by email. So I did it just for this thing. Because of what the other guy who wants to delete this article said. And now you, another person who wants to delete, finds another reason to discredit me, a proponent of this article. Suspicious, no? Not to mention all the "Delete" people that popped up below. It's like someone is doing what you call it here, CANVASSING? Right? Simanos (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is highly suspicious that four IP users all make their first edit to Wikipedia on this AfD within the space of an hour. I did not say their opinions should be disregarded, but that it is highly likely these !votes are illegitimate, but the weight placed on their !votes is for the closing administrator to decide. Every logged in user here has an established history of editing Wikipedia so are clearly legitimate !voters, but if you can find evidence of canvassing (which you won't), you could take it to an administrator's attention at ANI. I will also take from your message that you have now !voted twice in this discussion, so I will strike your original vote. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth explaining why those cases of WP:OTHERSTUFF aren't particularly relevant. In the case of Renault Formula One crash controversy the controversy occurred around a year after the event it centred on, which means that coverage of the race and coverage of the controversy by reliable sources was largely separate and distinct from one another. In the case of 2007 Formula One espionage controversy, the controversy played out over around half a season, and thus isn't specifically connected to any one race. A closer parallel here would be 2005 United States Grand Prix, which does not need a separate article titled "2005 United States Grand Prix tyre failures". I think the strength of emotions that many feel about this subject may be leading them to feel that having an effective duplicate article covering it is a further vindication of their feelings, or (particularly in the case of new/IP editors) they may not be aware of the existence of the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it does. The point is that Spygate was a complex event and controversy that extended beyond the bounds of a single sporting season. It didn't happen within the confines of a single event or a single season, it took until 2009 for all legal proceedings to be concluded. This, on the other hand, can be (and already is) neatly and comprehensively contained within the race report. Could it be split? Yes. Is that strictly necessary? No. But I think GhostOfDanGurney and HumanBodyPiloter5 have made quite a fair point that this controversy isn't comparable to those. This is a05 US GP situation where the controversy can be neatly contained, not a Crashgate or Spygate where it spills into messy legal proceedings that can't be contained within a single race or season. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a05 US GP situation where the controversy can be neatly contained, not a Crashgate or Spygate where it spills into messy legal proceedings that can't be contained within a single race or season. - this is just an opinion, as is This is a05 US GP situation where the controversy can be neatly contained, not a Crashgate or Spygate where it spills into messy legal proceedings that can't be contained within a single race or season.

    Calling 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix messy would be a massive understatement. The question here is whether, following a clean-up of 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, will is be suffiently "unmessy" to not warrant a WP:SPLIT. Frankly, that would be WP:OR at this point.

    More importantly, you clearly haven't read WP:OTHERSTUFF because if you had you'd realise that your last two comments (analising Renault Formula One crash controversy, 2007 Formula One espionage controversy and 2005 United States Grand Prix) will have no bearing on the outcome of this AfD, as you are discussing articles which aren't this one (WP:OTHERSTUFF works both ways). SSSB (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • OTHERSTUFF is deletion advice, not advice on splitting. Everything we share is ultimately opinion, and in my opinion this parallels another similar situation (the 05 US GP) in being a controversy that is contained within a single race and can be covered appropriately there. It is distinct from larger, messier controversies that did not relate to single events and thus could not be appropriately covered in a race or season report. If you like, I can make similar arguments without using examples to illustrate my point. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By arguing against a split that has already taken place you are arguing for a deletion. Even if you weren't, WP:OTHERSTUFF has an equivalent that focuses on non-AfD (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#What about other content?) If you like, I can make similar arguments without using examples to illustrate my point. - that's would you should have done. It's too late now.

    Also, you are incorrect, as crashgate related to a single event, and spygate to a single season, even if legal proceedings and investigations lasted years. Your argument against a split sounds as if you oppose a split because of the time frame of the relevant events (i.e. the investigation didn't last two years, or the contraversy only emerged one year later) and I don't see that as grounds for splitting, or not splitting. Rather, we should split things based on article length (which is why your examples are/aren't split), and we must make an assessment on whether a split is appropriate. Based on the length of the relevant sections at 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, I'm not sure. It also depends on how much of this article, if any (from what I've seen, not much), could be merged to 2021 Abu dhabi GP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk • contribs) 12:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't believe any of what you've said makes my argument invalid, but putting aside our disagreement on my somewhat clumsy delivery: the point remains that the controversy itself can be covered within the race report. It is not substantial enough in size or scope to warrant standalone coverage. As you've just said yourself, there is minimal content here that could be salvaged. The article can't justify its independent existence, and hence should be deleted. 5225C (talk • contributions) 14:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it made the arguement invalid, I just said that your examples didn't contribute to the argument. You say that the article can be covered within the race report, the question is whether it should. You are certain, I am less so. I think the length of 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix could warrant to split. We'll just have to agree to disagree about the degree of the validity of a split. SSSB (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the comparison to the 2005 United States Grand Prix tyre failures. That was a single event, that made some people unhappy (including me) and was soon put out of the public eye. A comparable event is the Spa 2021 race that was half counted, with 3 laps only behind safety car. That controversy was also quite jarring, but public opinion moved on quickly. On the contrary, the Abu Dhabi Final Lap Scandal was something huge, rules were bent, people were talking about it for months. It's still the most talked about subject and we're starting the next season. People talk about it more than the new cars reveals and first trials. And that's because there's news about it every day, tapes released or re-released, FIA investigations, rules changes made with references to the controversy. It is simply too notable to delete here and if you put ALL this info in the main race article it will become a big potato. A disservice to both articles. Simanos (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is that there isn't any content here that would add additional value to the race report. This duplicates the scope of this article so that it can present a narrative of events which was originally borderline vandalism and is now at least non-neutral. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:29, 5 March 2022 (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.
More