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]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Motorsport, and United Arab Emirates. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I smell a good case for WP:TNT deletion. This topic is obviously notable (and also needs a title that conforms to WP:TONE, as this one doesn't). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  hmm... for some reason I cant seem to change the title to "Abu Dhabi Last Lap Controversy".

  Anyone knows the trick to change the title? Would be much appreciated.

  Cheers and kind regards,

  Guru Professor Guru (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. The first line itself is a prelude of the entire article: simply a heavily biased, borderline-vandalistic column on something that is already covered in sufficient detail at 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Stacked with pointless sources to make it look like something it isn't. Can't help but laugh at the title... MSport1005 (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi all, the article outlines one of Formula 1 scandals in a growing list of Sporting scandals and F1 controversies

  (see Spygate, Rascassegate or the 2007 Finance scandal),

  List of sporting scandals

  and

  List of sporting scandals#Motorsport and Racing scandals

  The event is notable. And deserves its own article similar to the 20007 "spygate" scandal or the 2008 "crashgate" scandal. If I remember correctly those articles weren`t deleted, therefore I see no reason why this article should be deleted.

  The article is well researched and written objective and neutral.

  If there are specific areas of concern, regarding the title for example, please let me know. And I shall amend the title to "Controversy"

  I am happy to take any suggestions on board.

  Kind regards,

  Guru Professor Guru

  Professor Guru (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Professor Guru: For starters, the lead needs to be entriely re-written, the reactions section needs to be purged (for example, Kane's opinion. He confessed he doesn't know anything about Formula One, and this is made clear by the fact that his tweet doesn't even adress the basis for the contraversy. His critism would have applied even if all cars were allowed to unlap themselves (meaning no contravesy). His complaint is about the safety car rules, not the decision process) SSSB (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  much appreciated... for the feedback

  1. I tried to change the headline... I will research how to change it.
  2. Regarding Kanes tweet. Nothing that happened in that last lap was part of "safety car rules". At the time Kane thought it was part of safety car rules what the race director did. He thought that like 103 Million TV viewers, because that was how it was explained to him. It turned out that the decision making wasnt part of any regulation/safety car rules. It was something the race director invented out of thin air (which is why he was fired).
  3. but besides that... the race showed that people didnt really need to know much about Formula One to know that allowing 2-3 driver to race, while other drivers weren`t even able restart the race (or only allowing some others to race half a lap) was... how shall I put it... quite strange (to put it mildly).
  4. on that note... let me address the accusation of "fan wiki-sm" someone mentioned. the fact that these events have never happened in 70 years of Formula 1 history and the fact the race director was fired from his job last week, points in the direction that something terribly wrong in that race, and the "tone" of the article reflects that in a neutral and objective manner... the article needed to explain that.
  5. I`m not sure there is any (more than whats written) even more neutral way of saying that a referee invented new racing rules 1 lap before the end of a race, or saying someone got fired for making up new rules at the end of a historic race.
  6. Formula One fans deserve to get an encyclopedic summary of what took place.
  7. Your sincerely... Guru

  Professor Guru (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not going to go into further details here, as it is not the appropriate venue. By all means comment/ask for advice on Talk:The Abu Dhabi Final Lap Scandal (which I am watching) SSSB (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But this is not the "encyclopedic summary" "Formula One fans deserve". Because it isn't encyclopedic. SSSB (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally think an article on this topic should be written since (as others have pointed out) there are relevent articles written on the 2007 "spygate" and 2008 "crashgate" controversies, and this one is arguably the biggest since those two. However the article as it is written right now is terrible in countless different ways. In my opinion the question is whether this should be deleted so it can be written again from ground up, or if it is salvageable through heavy (very heavy) editing. EvanM2015 (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/draftify whilst it has been raised that a dedicated article to the contraversy could be written, this is so biased that it would be much quicker to simply delete this and start from scratch if we ever want to a neutral attempt at a dedicated article. At the very least it needs to be draftified so that we can salvage some neutrality from it. But, it is completely unsuitable for the mainspace in its current form. SSSB (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify and Blow up per SSSB's comments above, I 100% agree. This article needs to be blown up and re-written. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 18:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I agree with MSport1005 that this is borderline vandalism. This is an incredibly poorly-written opinion piece and one of the least neutral articles I've ever come across. I was going to tag it for cleanup but going through the Twinkle options far too many were applicable to actually be helpful. Perhaps an article could be written (with an objective title, such as "2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix controversy") but this article has, in my opinion, no usable content that could be put towards it. No attempt has been made to cover this incident in an objective manner or to include worldwide views. I would suggesting deleting this article, and then splitting content from the race report to a new title if that is desired. I personally don't see what additional content could be added that is not in the race report already, so I would suggest the creation of appropriate redirects to the relevant sections there. I will also note that many of the diagrams on this page are also copyright violations and also need to be deleted. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• To me it seems like ot is a clear well sourced page on a controversial topic. People trting to get it deleted seem to have an agenda to cover up the truth like fia have been trying on this topic. Leave as is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.55.12 (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC) — 194.151.55.12 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well sourced doesn't make it neutral, and that's the problem here. SSSB (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah yes, The Truth. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't blowup to rebuild, neutral on necessity of split - since I made my last comment significant changes have been made and I no longer believe that "blowing up and rebuilding" would be appropiate. Yes, this article is a long way from perfect, but it is also significantly better. I therefore now believe that the best way to deal with this is to trim down this article, copyedit it into an encylopedic tone, and re-publish under a more neutral name. Unless of course we decide not to split this content from 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, an issue on which I am currently neutral. SSSB (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The change is so great that I would argue that previous voters should re-consider. SSSB (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree completely. Recent changes have not given me any faith that this article is salvageable. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:45, 25 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. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi this is still relevant and highly important. The documents t from the fia investigation will also form part of formula one fans deciding as to whether or not they drop the sport as it becomes entertainment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.14.229 (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC) — 92.12.14.229 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• At the moment this is an unnecessary article. The content is written from an incredibly biased perspective which makes it useless. If more objective statements were used this could be a useful article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.230.153 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC) — 128.252.230.153 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There is not any bias within the article. Any and all information presented is relevant to the topic, and backed up with sources. It is important to recognize topics such as this to provide content to newer fans of Formula 1 and why people continue to discuss the events of The 2021 Abu Dhabi Gran Prix as it is a highly controversial topic within the sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:145:400:A2E0:71B7:33C:17E1:9DD9 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC) — 2601:145:400:A2E0:71B7:33C:17E1:9DD9 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This article presents facts and relevant data. DO NOT DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.114.177 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC) — 66.182.114.177 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not blowup to rebuild, do not split - This article looks fine to me and the issue is notable enough to warrant an article. It's too big to keep inside the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix so it should be split like Spygate and Crashgate articles are. Really, the only thing I question here is the attempts of some editors to get speedy deletion. Seems suspicious. 46.12.102.22 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC) — 46.12.102.22 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly is suspicious? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This !vote has been struck as duplicate. See below discussion with Simanos. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I'm concerned with the sudden influx of IP users. All comments from IP users in this AfD are the first and only contributions by those users. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Obvious WP:POVFORK of 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix which poses some fairly clear WP:COPYVIO concerns. Reads more like the script for a Youtube video than an encyclopaedia entry. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This article should not be deleted. It is factually correct and deserves its place in history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.90.5 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC) — 77.96.90.5 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not blowup to rebuild, do not merge - I agree with the above argument: "This article looks fine to me and the issue is notable enough to warrant an article. It's too big to keep inside the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix so it should be split like Spygate and Crashgate articles are. Really, the only thing I question here is the attempts of some editors to get speedy deletion. Seems suspicious." Simanos (talk) 22:12, 1 March 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. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete; do not draftify/recreate/et al. - Subject is already covered sufficiently at the parent article as nominator points out. It is also not too big for the parent article; coverage of the race was mostly dominated in the reliable sources by the controversy therefore a properly WEIGHTed article should reflect this. This incredibly poorly written POVFORK was not needed; anyone reading the facts should be able to interpret that Hamilton got screwed without needing to vandalize Wikipedia to make the POINT. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 06:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I am aware I have already !voted, but I would like to make it clear to the closing adminstrator that although the article has changed substantially since its nomination, I have followed it closely and my !vote has not changed. Although I believe the topic could be covered independently, I am leaning more towards GhostOfDanGurney's view that the race report already adequately covers this controversy, and splitting would be unnecesary. I will also express my continued concern that all IP !voters here have had no previous activity on Wikipedia, and it seems fairly likely these are not legitimate !votes. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per all issues raised above, this article is not needed at all. --TylerBurden (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There definitely needs to be an article on this topic and considering articles have been written and kept for other major F1 controversies such as 2007 spygate and 2008 crashgate I don't see why this one is any different and warrents removal. I think deletion requires a strong argument that this is a less significant controversy, and considering it led to the removal of a race director I don't think this is the case. The original article was very poorly written and while I originally favoured blowing up and starting again but since then the article has been heavily re-written and is reaching an acceptable state. It certainly needs more work still though. EvanM2015 (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF because this constant bringing up of spygate and crashgate has no bearing on whether this content fork should be kept or not. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:02, 2 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]

• @HumanBodyPiloter5: that doesn't cover why the espionage controversy isn't relevant. The espionage case wasn't specific to a race, but it is specific to 2007 Formula One World Championship. But espionage controversy still isn't relevant because it isn't the safety car controversy that this article discusses. SSSB (talk) 16:42, 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. 5225_C (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. 5225_C (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. 5225_C (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. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – POV fork which is completely surplus to 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Sceptre (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and we're good. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article appears to have been started with a very strong sensationalist, non-encyclopaedic perspective, and it's still poorly written and way too detailed (eg, the endless list of of quotes and opinions under Aftermath). We have the GP article and all of this can and should be handled there. JG66 (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a NPOV WP:FORK of 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the improvements made since the AfD was opened, this fork of the original article still contains excessive details, including quoting anybody who said anything about the race (I might be hyperbolical there, but only slightly). 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix covers the same incident in properly encyclopedic fashion and is not so long that it needs to be split. This article should be deleted as a duplication of an existing article. Schazjmd (talk) 01:52, 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.