List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies – Inconclusive, submitted to AfD. With the exception of WilyD, who advises overturning, nobody really addresses the question of whether the G4 speedy deletion was correct. The article is therefore referred to AfD to decide whether the original reasons for deletion still apply. – Sandstein 20:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) The version of this article is substantially different from the one that was deleted in July (discussions here and here, previous versions of deleted article here and here). Given references were more readily available (~20), that the corresponding article for the previous World cup had fewer refs and was still left alone, then why was it redeleted? Asoccer maniac (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment using the 1998 article in a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is pretty disingenuous since AFAICT it's not been AFDd and was only put in mainspace a couple of weeks ago (by you with a note dismissive of deletion discussion). As it stands, and I'm about to edit it out it in at least one place (I haven't read them all), it shows why these can be a nightmare. It states "Ronaldo played in the final despite having suffered a seizure just hours earlier due to a painkiller overdose." and quotes a source. The source talks of a doctor finding him post seizure, the source goes on asking asking the doctor.. '"Could not the pain-killers have triggered the seizure? "No, no,.."' i.e. quite the opposite to what the wiki article says. The source goes on to talk about "In the Brazilian papers the conspiracy theorists...", generally the common term "conspiracy theorists" should tell us something about the quality of what's being discussed. So much for BLP? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] No, I don't think it was disingenuous, as it's not the sole basis of my argument. As for the issue with Ronaldo, I read in the aftermath of that world Cup that he confesses to using painkillers and having a fit. He appears to have changed his mind, not that it's wrong. Neither does it undermine the argument. A major improved revision to a previously deleted article was related without mediation or discussion, or in the case of the 1998 [article] modification of the content. That leaves me only one channel. Asoccer maniac (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC) PS I don't think I was dismissive of anything (certainly not deletion discussions). It seems more to be refering to the fact that the AFC process is (was) very backlogged. Asoccer maniac (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] If you really don't see the problem with "I read in the aftermath of that world Cup that he confesses to uses painkillers and having a fit. He appears to have changed his mind, not that it's wrong.", rather than "I have a reliable source which I can cite it to" then I give up. Similarly the difference between "I use painkillers and have had a fit" and "I've had a fit as a result of overdose of painkillers" are not even close in meaning --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I do get it; correlation does not imply causation. "I read" in a sports newspaper (forgotten the title, over 16 years ago) that the initial suspicion for the seizure was an overdose of painkillers he took for his knee (which turned out to be a major problem throughout his career) during France 98, and it was at this stage of the affair that my knowledge ended. Perhaps I was not clear. "Not that it's wrong", as in for Ronaldo to change his mind on what happened that day; on what he felt caused his seizure, especially as more (medical) information comes out. This detail, while important, did not undermine the whole article. If a fault in the information was indeed found, it should simply have been explained, then corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asoccer maniac (talk • contribs) 01:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC) PS To rejoin the above to the relevant article, any contentious information could have been fact checked. The main issues that I can see are about Rivaldo and Fadiga. Nothing else, I think violates the BLP policy. What's really annoying is that the original deletion criteria were not reapplied as fully in the new form of the article. Asoccer maniac (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - substantial additional sourcing merits a new discussion. That the first discussion was completely broken isn't helpful either. Wily D 09:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies (deleted, 11:45, 19 July 2014). Before considering this, improve 2002 FIFA World Cup. If it is desired to introduce material on the subtopic of "controversies", make the case at Talk:2002 FIFA World Cup for the inclusion of mention in the article, and consideration of a WP:SPINOUT. Beware NPOV issues inherent in "controversy" topics, especially WP:UNDUE. Endorse the deletions that prevent end-runs around WP:UNDUE by creating orphan subarticles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment It's important to separate the noteworthiness of the article from any discussion about its (erstwhile) form when it was first deleted. This is important because there has been a significant change in the content, and it would not be fair to jugde the article as it was on July 19. So that everyone (anyone?) can see this, I am relinking this page to to the deleted article's status in July (here, here and here) for comparison with the September article (copy of Yahoo cache here and HTML source here). Asoccer maniac (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies – Inconclusive, submitted to AfD. With the exception of WilyD, who advises overturning, nobody really addresses the question of whether the G4 speedy deletion was correct. The article is therefore referred to AfD to decide whether the original reasons for deletion still apply. – Sandstein 20:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The version of this article is substantially different from the one that was deleted in July (discussions here and here, previous versions of deleted article here and here). Given references were more readily available (~20), that the corresponding article for the previous World cup had fewer refs and was still left alone, then why was it redeleted? Asoccer maniac (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment using the 1998 article in a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is pretty disingenuous since AFAICT it's not been AFDd and was only put in mainspace a couple of weeks ago (by you with a note dismissive of deletion discussion). As it stands, and I'm about to edit it out it in at least one place (I haven't read them all), it shows why these can be a nightmare. It states "Ronaldo played in the final despite having suffered a seizure just hours earlier due to a painkiller overdose." and quotes a source. The source talks of a doctor finding him post seizure, the source goes on asking asking the doctor.. '"Could not the pain-killers have triggered the seizure? "No, no,.."' i.e. quite the opposite to what the wiki article says. The source goes on to talk about "In the Brazilian papers the conspiracy theorists...", generally the common term "conspiracy theorists" should tell us something about the quality of what's being discussed. So much for BLP? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it was disingenuous, as it's not the sole basis of my argument. As for the issue with Ronaldo, I read in the aftermath of that world Cup that he confesses to using painkillers and having a fit. He appears to have changed his mind, not that it's wrong. Neither does it undermine the argument. A major improved revision to a previously deleted article was related without mediation or discussion, or in the case of the 1998 [article] modification of the content. That leaves me only one channel. Asoccer maniac (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC) PS I don't think I was dismissive of anything (certainly not deletion discussions). It seems more to be refering to the fact that the AFC process is (was) very backlogged. Asoccer maniac (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you really don't see the problem with "I read in the aftermath of that world Cup that he confesses to uses painkillers and having a fit. He appears to have changed his mind, not that it's wrong.", rather than "I have a reliable source which I can cite it to" then I give up. Similarly the difference between "I use painkillers and have had a fit" and "I've had a fit as a result of overdose of painkillers" are not even close in meaning --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do get it; correlation does not imply causation. "I read" in a sports newspaper (forgotten the title, over 16 years ago) that the initial suspicion for the seizure was an overdose of painkillers he took for his knee (which turned out to be a major problem throughout his career) during France 98, and it was at this stage of the affair that my knowledge ended. Perhaps I was not clear. "Not that it's wrong", as in for Ronaldo to change his mind on what happened that day; on what he felt caused his seizure, especially as more (medical) information comes out. This detail, while important, did not undermine the whole article. If a fault in the information was indeed found, it should simply have been explained, then corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asoccer maniac (talk • contribs) 01:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC) PS To rejoin the above to the relevant article, any contentious information could have been fact checked. The main issues that I can see are about Rivaldo and Fadiga. Nothing else, I think violates the BLP policy. What's really annoying is that the original deletion criteria were not reapplied as fully in the new form of the article. Asoccer maniac (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - substantial additional sourcing merits a new discussion. That the first discussion was completely broken isn't helpful either. Wily D 09:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies (deleted, 11:45, 19 July 2014). Before considering this, improve 2002 FIFA World Cup. If it is desired to introduce material on the subtopic of "controversies", make the case at Talk:2002 FIFA World Cup for the inclusion of mention in the article, and consideration of a WP:SPINOUT. Beware NPOV issues inherent in "controversy" topics, especially WP:UNDUE. Endorse the deletions that prevent end-runs around WP:UNDUE by creating orphan subarticles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's important to separate the noteworthiness of the article from any discussion about its (erstwhile) form when it was first deleted. This is important because there has been a significant change in the content, and it would not be fair to jugde the article as it was on July 19. So that everyone (anyone?) can see this, I am relinking this page to to the deleted article's status in July (here, here and here) for comparison with the September article (copy of Yahoo cache here and HTML source here). Asoccer maniac (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sunday_Publishing – Speedy deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sunday_Publishing (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Disclosure: This is my first real submission and I do work for Sunday. My intention was to provide a brief summary of the business for curious parties, it was not intended as self-promotion (and indeed I don't think it would be especially effective in that regard). The original draft did feature one poorly chosen phrase ('effective and compelling') that I was unsurprised to see immediately removed. Beyond this it seemed to me that it met the 'notability' criteria, in terms of reliable significant coverage in secondary sources, independent of the subject. I tried to provide copious online references to support this, and am very open to modification (or suggestions) if the text is seen in any way to fall short of accepted standards. I have discussed this with the deleter, who suggested this course of action. T1kenobi (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse While the honesty is refreshing and appreciated, it would be pretty poor form to undelete an article written by someone with a conflict of interest as severe as working for the company in question. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Ok, thanks for the quick response, much appreciated.T1kenobi (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment - mostly agree with Andrew here. T1kenobi - it might be worth collaborating with someone (you might find a helpful volunteer at WP:COIN if you explain the circumstances) to help you create a draft article. That way there is more input from the wider community to mitigate some of the COI concerns. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] I assume the deleted content is the same as that found here: User:T1kenobi/sandbox? The WP:COI is a lesser concern, given the refreshingly honest disclosure. The greater concern is the meeting of the inclusion standard described at WP:CORP. Wikipedia is particularly sensitive about being used for promotion, or to repeat promotion. Corporations have a clear incentive to self-promote, and self-promotion has no place here. Industry awards and industry sponsored commentary are regarded with extreme scepticism; these things are not easily argued to be independent of the corporation. Please produce a couple of independent secondary sources that discuss the subject directly. Note that "reports" and "facts" are not secondary source content, while they are great material to include, but they do not themselves justify inclusion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thanks all for the feedback, much appreciated. Yes, the content in my sandbox is (more or less) what is being discussed. My intention was to try to present factual information, rather than promotional material, possibly I failed. The inclusion of the media coverage/awards was intended to try to address the 'notability' criteria. I now can't tell what would actually fulfill this at all (nearly all media being subjective by its nature!) - as far as I can see media citation is used widely (on wikipedia). Anyway, thanks again all, I will look at your suggestions. T1kenobi (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sunday_Publishing – Speedy deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Disclosure: This is my first real submission and I do work for Sunday.

My intention was to provide a brief summary of the business for curious parties, it was not intended as self-promotion (and indeed I don't think it would be especially effective in that regard).

The original draft did feature one poorly chosen phrase ('effective and compelling') that I was unsurprised to see immediately removed. Beyond this it seemed to me that it met the 'notability' criteria, in terms of reliable significant coverage in secondary sources, independent of the subject. I tried to provide copious online references to support this, and am very open to modification (or suggestions) if the text is seen in any way to fall short of accepted standards. I have discussed this with the deleter, who suggested this course of action. T1kenobi (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse While the honesty is refreshing and appreciated, it would be pretty poor form to undelete an article written by someone with a conflict of interest as severe as working for the company in question. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the quick response, much appreciated.T1kenobi (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - mostly agree with Andrew here. T1kenobi - it might be worth collaborating with someone (you might find a helpful volunteer at WP:COIN if you explain the circumstances) to help you create a draft article. That way there is more input from the wider community to mitigate some of the COI concerns. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the deleted content is the same as that found here: User:T1kenobi/sandbox? The WP:COI is a lesser concern, given the refreshingly honest disclosure. The greater concern is the meeting of the inclusion standard described at WP:CORP. Wikipedia is particularly sensitive about being used for promotion, or to repeat promotion. Corporations have a clear incentive to self-promote, and self-promotion has no place here. Industry awards and industry sponsored commentary are regarded with extreme scepticism; these things are not easily argued to be independent of the corporation. Please produce a couple of independent secondary sources that discuss the subject directly. Note that "reports" and "facts" are not secondary source content, while they are great material to include, but they do not themselves justify inclusion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the feedback, much appreciated. Yes, the content in my sandbox is (more or less) what is being discussed. My intention was to try to present factual information, rather than promotional material, possibly I failed. The inclusion of the media coverage/awards was intended to try to address the 'notability' criteria. I now can't tell what would actually fulfill this at all (nearly all media being subjective by its nature!) - as far as I can see media citation is used widely (on wikipedia). Anyway, thanks again all, I will look at your suggestions. T1kenobi (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.