Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umbro sponsorships
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Umbro sponsorships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike sponsorships, article is an indiscriminate list with no clear criterion or standard for inclusion, and completely unsourced despite tagged as being so since May. Absent any sort of standard, this list is impossible to maintain up to Wikipedia standards, even if anyone bothered to try. Mosmof (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Please see related Afds, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adidas sponsorships and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike sponsorships. These articles have been PRODed twice, but rationale given for keep at Talk:Umbro sponsorships is, in my opinion, insufficient. Mosmof (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete same reasons as Nike. Empire3131 (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think they have a very obvious criteria for inclusion, so I'm not sure how you can argue that they are indiscriminate. And maintenance efforts are also not a valid reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the criteria for inclusion a particularly notable one? Umbro sponsors countless teams, athletes and organizations - clearly, simply being sponsored by Umbro doesn't make anyone stand out. No, maintenance efforts are not a valid reason for deletion, but it is part of why we have WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LAUNDRY. This seems like a rather clear case of laundry lists that we try to avoid. Mosmof (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any way we can group these nominations together, because the discussion will really be identical for each of them. See my comments on the other two articles. matt91486 (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the criteria for inclusion a particularly notable one? Umbro sponsors countless teams, athletes and organizations - clearly, simply being sponsored by Umbro doesn't make anyone stand out. No, maintenance efforts are not a valid reason for deletion, but it is part of why we have WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LAUNDRY. This seems like a rather clear case of laundry lists that we try to avoid. Mosmof (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike sponsorships. As for the sourcing, Umbro itself maintains a list of sponsorships. Jfire (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2008 (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.