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. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An advertisement, with no indication as to why it is any more notable than any other advertisement. Michael Johnson (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I think that the appearance of so many soccer glitterati in one advert probably does make it more notable than most, and I think there should be some sources out there around fees and filming etc that would help demonstrate this. --Ged UK (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading to a proper keep. Gilliam involved swings it for me. --Ged UK (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication of notability conferred by the inclusion of multiple non-trivial references by independent reliable sources. Footballer ensembles in adverts haven't been novel for years. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are 29000 ghits for the tournament. Added a BBC news reference. Discovered the director of the commercials is Terry Gilliam. Given the number of hits, the prestige of the personnel involved, the context of the ads running in the '02 World Cup, WP:GAAAC, and the promise of the article, this should be a keepVulture19 (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is not a BBC news entry: it is from h2g2, which is no more authoritative a source than Wikipedia: arguably less so, as it has no monitoring of verifiability of content. The small print on the page says "Most of the content on this site is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public." So even Gilliam's involvement, although I have no grounds to doubt it, is not meaningfully verified. Kevin McE (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for the alert, and I will remove the BBC ref from the article, I won't remove the assertion, however, as digging a little deeper appears to confirm Gilliam's involvement. Just don't have time right now to do any significant work on the page. (Don't really have time to engage in debate, either, but it is so edifying....)Vulture19 (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Also worth noting is that the music in the ad was a remix of obscure Elvis Presley song "A Little Less Conversation", which off the back of the ad shot straight to number 1 in the UK..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that it was a tournament, or that there were matches, or where it took place, or what degree of secrecy was involved. It is a series of edited clips of players doing tricks in a studio somewhere. Article full of untenable claims (is Sylvain Wiltord verifiably among the top 24 players in the world?), and an article that serves no purpose other than to draw attention to an advertisement is arguably itself promotional. When and if an independent documentary is made about the making of the advert, then there might be something worth salvaging, but not as things stand. The only reference is to a replay of the ad on youtube: that is proof of existence, not of notability. Kevin McE (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - noitulovE, an article about an advert, is a Featured Article, so there clearly isn't an issue with the concept in general. If similar sources exist for this one (and they surely must for such a high-profile campaign) then I think the article could be rewritten into something half decent -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't think the issue whether the advert was, in fact, and advert, or that it was real are in question here. The advert appears to have excellent notability among soccer fans (I'm a casual fan and I recall the ad). It is also a series of adverts, not just a on off. The discussion here has also lead me to some other interesting facts, including the Gilliam connection and it's ability to propel a 20+ year old song to a #1 position on a record chart. Furthermore, the article doesn't play up the commercial interests of Pepsi, only references it as needed. Since there is no blatant commercialism, why is there a rush to delete a one day old article? Also, precedence - there are 101 commercials listed under category:television_commercials , and this is at least as relevant as the majority of those. Vulture19 (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - According to this article from the Independent, the Scorpion KO campaign was, at the time, Nike's costliest advertising campaign ever. Cage tournaments similar to that in the advert were held all over the world (including in Singapore, where I attended), and the whole thing truly launched the Nike Mercurial Vapor brand onto the market. There was also a follow-up "Rematch" advert, and the background music (A Little Less Conversation by Elvis Presley and remixed by JXL) for both adverts was even released as a CD single. – PeeJay 13:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This book I found on Google Books also gives a fairly deep assessment of the advert and its associated promotional campaign. – PeeJay 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's another source, this time from Time Magazine.
  • Is this a reliable source? The site calls itself a "Terry Gilliam fanzine", but it seems legit. – PeeJay 13:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found a couple more sources here, here and here. – PeeJay 07:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PeeJay. GiantSnowman 14:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Most of the arguments in support of "keep" seem to be along the lines of "lots of famous people were involved on it" or "Nike spent lots of money on it". Lots of ads also use famous music, often sparking a revival in their popularity. In all these cases maybe the ad should be mentioned on the relevant articles, if notable enough. But relationships do not confer notability. Surely the question should be what, if anything, in this ad, changed television advertising? If nothing, then surely it is not notable. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Putting aside that this article was proposed for deletion exactly 78 minutes after creation, what has been determined since the AfD came up is

• A significant number of the greatest players in the world were involved
• The series was directed by a notable, critically acclaimed director
• Given the above may confer no notability, at the time it was produced it was among the most expensive advertising campaigns, ever.
• Documented, both through the web and through the personal experience of an editor, involvement of an estimated 1 million people world wide as a direct result of this advert
• Advert was at least partly responsible for a 20+year old song reaching #1 in the UK
• Notable relationship to the 2002 World Cup
• Spawned a video game
• Precedence - the category for television commercial articles contains about 100 entries.
• The article itself is not an advertisement, and appears to have a very NPOV.
• EDIT One more thing - in the articles for quite a few some of the people named in the article, their involvement is noted.

Now, all of these points may be argued, but at some point they can be cited given the collaborative efforts of many different editors. In general, though, I would say it takes more than 78 minutes to get involvement.

Vulture19 (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The length of time an article is up has nothing to do with it's potential notability. I still don't see how the advert is notable. Many ads are expensive, "star" well known personalities, and have prominent directors. The fact there are "only" 100 ads in the category "Television Commercials" out of the thousands that are made every year indicates that ads are not just notable in their own right. Surely we need a reliable source to indicate notability, for instance has the ad received an award? has it been written up in the relevant professional media as a notable ad? And no, we shouldn't leave articles about non-notable subjects hanging around in the hope that somebody comes along some time with some evidence of notability. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of sufficent independent reliable third-party coverage means if fails the notability test. - fchd (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the ones I linked to above? – PeeJay 07:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is another source, from the UK's leading trade journal for the marketing industry..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of reliable third-party indepedent coverage found so far -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no reason why adverts can't gain notability. Sufficient RS exist. --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above. EagleFan (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well known and highly notable series of adverts. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2009 (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.