Talk:UEFA Euro 2012 sponsorship

Text and/or other creative content from this version of UEFA Euro 2012 sponsorship was copied or moved into UEFA Euro 2012#Sponsorship with this edit on 14:58, 30 June 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Merge with UEFA Euro 2012[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was a merge between UEFA Euro 2012#Sponsorship and UEFA Euro 2012 sponsorship

This article is short and unlikely to be edited or viewed in the future. Therefore, I propose that it be merged with UEFA Euro 2012 as a new section in that article. This article is short enough that it will NOT bloat the main article. Please discuss this and list reasons for support or opposition. Thanks. Dar5995 (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, But it should not simply be copied, since it is a redudante list in itself. A few words about UEFAs sponsorship policy should be added after research are done. Otherwise it would simply make the main article worse. And we shouldnt simply migrated this articles source problems to the main article. Then it would be better simply to delete this article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Super Bowl advertising are more notable, and even they do not have articles for themselves. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The page shouldn't have even be allowed to exist separately in the first place. Completely superfluous. What's next, list UEFA Euro 2012 skybox/corporate hospitality VIPs? Loginnigol (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sponsorship does not need a stand alone page. Include it in the main page, but only if some text will be added. As it is now it is completely unnecessary anyway. - Svefnpurka (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd almost oppose on principle: there really is nothing that should even be merged. This is basically a G6. Support on the notion that this is the quickest way to get rid of the page. On a related note, page creator Lloydf640 may need some mentorship on article creation and notability. --87.79.227.221 (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Too little for a separate page: BUT please try to compact this info down into a table or similar, to avoid more scrolling than necessary on the main page. Hence does not need this stand alone page; as per the TEN other similar sub-event pages I have had to vote on this week wasting valuable time — get on and do it, a consensus has appeared here enough already. Jimthing (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--GoP _T ^C _N 09:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.