Talk:Sponsor (commercial)/Archives/2012

Commercial content/overall cleanup needed?

• Disclosure - I work for a firm cited as a reference in this article

There are a few paragraphs in this article that do not lend significantly valuable information to the definition or history of the topic that I would like to remove but would like other's input first. There's also a lot of editing that could be done to enhance the article's quality.

Specifically, the fifth and sixth paragraphs seem to be present solely for commercial benefit of the organization and person mentioned and should either be moved to their own page or struck. "The International Sponsor Council (ISC) was formed..." and "Founded by veteran sponsorship professional, Dan Beeman..."

The paragraph about neuroscience seems misplaced. The article title is about commercial sponsors, medical sponsors would seemingly be excluded.

Additionally, this article lacks the structure I am used to on wikipedia making it hard to digest. Historical information is included in the definition section, as are techniques for utilizing a sponsorship in a commercial nature. Regional differences in how sponsorship is used should be separated and fleshed out. Overall, more structure is needed to make this information useful.

--Philu2 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This whole article bothers me...

I have so many problems with this article...

• Most of the text of this article seems like a disjointed essay from a business textbook, taken out of context, that uses some sort of businessspeak jargon created specifically for a textbook-e.g., "consumer advantages", "income profits" (what other sorts of profits are there?), "profit margin targets". Basically the entire "Behind the logo" section makes little sense to me - I'm not sure what the original author's intent was, or what sources he consulted to write this. Critics of sponsorship?
• There are zero sources cited. -e.g. " It can be said that corporations sponsor for the interests of themselves and not for the viewer" --it can be said by who? and who is "the viewer"?
• Non neutral POV - lots of 'weasel words' - e.g. "most critics would agree", "It can be said that ", "many would agree" -maybe this isn't weasel words, maybe it's just that it needs citations?
• Assertions are not backed up by any supporting ideas--e.g., "Sponsorship is also becoming increasingly important in education.", which is followed by text about Forumla One racing, televised events, general sporting events, and then finally by college sporting events. A link between sponsoring of a college sporting and its importance to education is not established. Also, the example about radio stations is redundant-basically a short summary of the sustaining program entry- and its relevance as an alternative/contrast to (advertising) sponsorship is not established.
• I am not entirely convinced that 'sponsor' needs an encyclopedia entry in the first place--it seems that a dictionary entry would suffice. I have already removed the etymology that a previous author included.

I'm a new to contributing to wikipedia, so I'll have to read up on what to do to fix this, but I think this article needs massive editing.Aplasman 05:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In theory I think the article should be deleted as it is a definition not an encyclopaedia entry. It is also not high quality. Provided you don't put in links etc I don't think anyone will mind you trying to improve it in a major way... but if no worthy content turns up I guess it will go eventually --BozMo talk 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be deleted - I don't see any useful content that isn't dictionary-esque. I don't have any special knowledge about 'sponsor' (I just saw this page and though it needed help), so I have no content to add to make this an encyclopaedic entry. But it is marked as part of the Wikipedia CD selection, which I really know nothing about--although having read your user page, it seems you do. Will deleting this article affect the WPCD somehow? Also, I don't know how to go about deleting an article yet.Aplasman 17:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, no prob with the tag. The tag just means someone has proposed it. It would get filtered out before the actual CD is done. I suggest you follow WP:AfD on the article: good way to see how it works! --BozMo talk 21:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

I'm going to rename this article from "Sponsor" to "Sponsor (commercial)" because there are various other kinds (as indicated by disambig page).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

True. --MaxAMSC (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)