Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESPN's Sports Heaven

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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ESPN's Sports Heaven

ESPN's Sports Heaven (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable commercial for no longer existant product EnsRedShirt 19:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is part of ESPN lore like the Edsel. TonyTheTiger 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment it was one forgetable superbowl ad. It is not 1984 (television commercial) nor is it This is Sportscenter. EnsRedShirt 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. To me it is irrelevant that Mobile ESPN failed, and besides it does still exist as part of the Verizon program. To me, what matters is that it was one of the more dominant and interesting ads for that year, being the water-cooler-worthy ad for that Super Bowl for all its many celebrities and visual approach. It was certainly notable then. {I wrote the first draft, so that should be taken into consideration when evaluating this opinion.)--Mike Selinker 14:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep "Non-notable" and "forgettable" are a matter of opinion. We are in the category of AFD ("A five-day public debate and discussion on the merits of the article and its best treatment. Applicable to all articles where deletion is unsure, seriously contested, or may need debate, and all borderline or controversial cases.") The main linked article, Mobile ESPN, is not yet up for deletion. There is no discussion on the Talk:ESPN's_Sports_Heaven calling for deletion. There is nothing controversial about the article. It is pretty difficult to consider dropping an article with a large amount linked content both ways. The article is the number 4 Google link using the separate words "sports" and "heaven". I do not understand what constitutes borderline other than a personal opinion of what constitutes a Wikipedia article. As a business enterprise, Mobile ESPN was a product in search of a market that ended up a monetary flop. This puts it in the category of Commercial failures. And if you look at that particular category, Mobile ESPN rises at least to the top half of the list. Sports Heaven was the biggest expense and biggest part of the failure. Group29 15:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. So far, I have only seen arguments that use personal opinion along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT: "It is part of ESPN lore." "...it was one of the more dominant and interesting ads that year...". The fact that Mobile ESPN is not up for deletion is neither here nor there, as an article can be subject to deletion independent of its main topic (see all the Simpsons lists that have popped up on AfD.) As to Group29's assertion that there is nothing controversial about the article, I would respond with the opinion that it is in clear violation of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically in that it is solely a plot summary and description of the ad. SliceNYC (Talk) 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is no reason some of the article's content can't be incorporated into Mobile ESPN -- that they aired a costly ad during the Super Bowl which featured lots of sports stars in a made-up sports world. However, I don't think this means every athlete and allusion needs to be mentioned in a separate article. SliceNYC (Talk) 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree with that, if it's that important to have some of the info it should be incorporated into the Mobile ESPN article. I did not nominate that one as it is notable and was the commercial flop, not the other way around as others here seem to think, it's also why I didn't nominate This is SportsCenter as it is a notable ad series over a decade now. I hope this explains my reasoning a bit better. EnsRedShirt 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment It seems like we could all be comfortable if we go to WP:Merge as reccommended in the "Before nominating an AfD" section of WP:AFD. EnsRedShirt, I suggest that be the direction and then we will save ourselves from a gasoline vs. petrol debate over the relative merit of the content. ;-) Thanks, Group29 03:15, 11 February 2007 (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.