Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESPN's Sports Heaven (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Secret account 19:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

ESPN's Sports Heaven
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like an IMDB entry for a Super Bowl ad. No indication of notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable; completely unsourced as it stands and full of POV. Can't find reliable sources. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to ESPN MVP (formerly Mobile ESPN). Reliable sources do exist.  The link to the AdWeek article mentioned in the current text was deleted as a deadlink, but here's a live link  and there's also a working archive.org link now cited in the article.  Articles about the ad include: Boston Globe, Boston Herald , Ad Age (noting this was ESPN's first Super Bowl ad), Auburn Journal , a book on ESPN history , International Herald Tribune   (the last two have relatively brief coverage).  However, I am not sure there has been enough lasting coverage focused on the ad, as opposed to the Mobile ESPN service it was introducing, to justify a separate article about the ad.  In the first AfD, the result was "keep" but strong arguments were also made in favor of merger instead.  In any event, deletion would not be appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While merging whatever useful info might appropriate, this deletion request was made primarily because there is no real claim to notability for this advertisement. Most of the articles you mentioned are the regular puff pieces which cover basically every high profile Super Bowl advertising campaign. They function to promote the ads themselves as well as take opportunity to draw readers in by discussing something having to do with the superbowl. Lasting notability, inherent importance in the field of advertising or otherwise is not established. Certainly sources like have more to do with other subjects and do not explain why this advertisement deserves coverage. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This article must be deleted or merged as soon as possible since it is incomplete. It gives Wikipedia a bad public image. Joey Gallo (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 21:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete - Notability is not temporary. There's is a rash of coverage on lavish superbowl ads every year.  Theis is simply one of those ads, and the coverage is at a point in time.  That makes it a news item.  There is no lasting impact.  the book on ESPN history provided above gives the ad a one sentence mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.