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 of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 16:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; listcruft--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --JChap 03:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as TBC pointed out, listcruft Stormscape 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be made encyclepedic. Such a list would not fit on the main page, it may have even been split from there. It is notable imo. Cvene64 08:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if it had third party references like [1] and [2].. maybe. but it has no references at all at the moment --Astrokey44 10:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we referenced each entry, then the references section would be longer than the article. Kevin 12:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 09:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too close to advertisng too in a way Ydam 10:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. With lists of potentially transient information, either each entry should have dates, or else the whole list may potentially dwindle to nothing over time. Kevin 10:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see much use for this list. JIP | Talk 15:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like listcruft. feydey 17:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks too much like an advert. Athenaeum 17:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wryspy 21:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Guinnog 23:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is useful for those who are looking for information related to sponsorship and can be used in research. Our school assignment has us currently looking for information like this to chronicle the marketing "war" between Nike and Adidas.--Chrisjustinparr 13:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The thing is that lists like these can be useful, but is Wikipedia the place? I don't know. Captainj 13:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:Cvene64 :) Dlohcierekim 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - i think the best place to find out this kind of information would be from adidas themeselves (i'm sure they'd be pleased to tell anyone who asks :) ) r2b2 22:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic listcruft. lowercase 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep doesn't violate my reading of the above policy. It's poorly edited, sure, but the information could be useful. RE:r2b2 perhaps true, but I can see that taking a few days to get the reply, does keeping a copy here really hurt that much? aLii 23:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." (from WP:NOT). Violates policy to me. -EdGl 22:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much every article on wikipedia could be argued to breach that, if you were so inclined. The policy is very specific about what kind of lists shouldn't be allowed, and I quote:
Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). You may want to consider contributing FAQ lists to Wikibooks.
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.
The specifics in this section of policy you're talking about are merely instances where the community has already made a consensus. There is no consensus yet for the issue right here in this afd, which we are trying to make right now! :-) The argument I'm trying to make wouldn't work on "pretty much every article on wikipedia", but it sure is working on this one... EdGl 20:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not just another list, it is definitive and informative. It answers the question "Which teams, clubs, countries are sponsored by Adidas?" I question whether it is notable but I have seen many lists that beggar the same question which are kept. -- Alias Flood 01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 12:45, 3 June 2006 (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.