Talk:Adidas Copa Mundial

Re-instertion of unreliable source

@Govvy, Would you please like to explain why you reverted to reinsert sources which are unreliable because they are a) a blog (soccerpre.com the instep), b) are sources where editorial policies could not be located (www.soccer.com) and c) the article does not support the claim made about Adidas Copa Mundial because they don't mention the product in the entire article (www.footy-boots.com article)? Can you please further explain why you removed maintenance tags despite none of the issues being resolved? TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Tell me, can you locate editorial polices on BBC or Sky News, how about CNN? Also, it's okay to add to articles at AfD, but taking information away is bad form. That was the main reason, and you shouldn't remove citations until after an AfD close. Govvy (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy

BBC

This page references that there is editorial guidelines for CNN

Sky News

Did you even look at https://www.footy-boots.com/football-boots-history/ to see if the Adidas Copa Mundial was mentioned to support the claim that "Since 2001 it has been the world's best-selling football boot." I did?

Did you do perform a simple google on "SoccerPro.com theinstep about" to discover that it's a blog? I did.

Did you do a google on "soccer.com editorial guidelines" and ""soccer.com editorial policy" to discovery that there is nothing locatable? I did.

I suggest you do a self-revert, because you have edited to reintroduce unreliable sources without even doing basic checking. TarnishedPath^talk 12:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you don't mess with articles while at AfD. Govvy (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Govvy, you have deliberately and knowingly edited an article to reintroduce unreliable sources and you refuse to remedy your edit. This is a specific violation of Wikipedia policies. TarnishedPath^talk 23:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)