Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike sponsorships


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nike sponsorships

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

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, and because Nike sponsors so many athletes and teams in virtually every competitive sport and at practically all levels, this list is impossible to maintain up to Wikipedia standards, even if anyone bothered to try. Mosmof (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Please see related Afds, Articles for deletion/Adidas sponsorships and Articles for deletion/Umbro sponsorships. These articles have been PRODed twice, but rationale given for keep at Talk:Umbro sponsorships is, in my opinion, insufficient. Mosmof (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not a good article, more of a category. Empire3131 (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think a category would be sufficient in this case. Putting individuals and teams, etc. in the same category would offer less explanation than this list, sorted by sports. matt91486 (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep and improve. notable subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is being sponsored by Nike notable? --Mosmof (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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) 17:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the criteria for inclusion a particularly notable one? Nike sponsors thousands of teams, athletes and organizations. 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) 20:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sports company sponsorhips are a significant topic in the athletics world. Differentiation between sponsors between and within leagues can provide valuable insight into the sports business world.  The only real flaw with these lists is that they aren't extended to cover some of the other important shoe sponsorship companies, which would help to form a more comprehensive coverage on the subject. They have a defined criteria, subjects on both ends are notable, and it is an important grouping of information. matt91486 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sports company sponsorships are a significant topic, but these lists are just that, big, unsourced and unwieldy lists. A subsection in Sports marketing would be of actual encyclopedic value. These are just laundry lists. --Mosmof (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is certainly not worthy of deletion. Nike's influence on sports, especially basketball is of sure significance. I disagree totally that this should be deleted. --Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to belabor the point but, I am still struggling to understand how this massive list helps us understand Nike's influence on sports, beyond trying to shock and awe the reader. Couldn't the point be made better by citing an expert in sports marketing saying, "Nike wields influence in sports, particularly basketball, by outfitting athletes and teams" or something to that extent? It seems both you and Matt91486 seem to be extrapolating value from these listicles that aren't actually there. We don't need a list of players who wear high tops to make a point about the importance of ankle support in basketball. Likewise, I don't see how this big list of Nike-wearing people and organizations helps us understand anything about sponsorships. Mosmof (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I really believe that's a manner of personal preference. I think a visual representation of the breadth and range is helpful.  Really, though, the lists are discriminate, so there still isn't a policy reason you have suggested for deletion.  WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. matt91486 (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it really discriminate? These sponsorships seem rather discriminate - even Non-League football clubs and semi-pro athletes can get kit and footwear sponsorship. --Mosmof (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2008 (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.