- 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 no consensus. I don't see a consensus here. Editors interested in a Merge can start that process after this AFD is closed. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Adidas Copa Mundial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
1) Per WP:NOTADVERT this at the very least needs WP:TNT 2) Fails WP:GNG. A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS. TarnishedPathtalk 04:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Sports, and Football. TarnishedPathtalk 04:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a rather iconic football boot amongst many, there are multiple reviews online about the boots such as ESPNs example, which in turn is in-depth coverage. There are some news articles, such as [1] about possible discontinuation of the boot. However they continue to update it at times [2]. There are multiple sources online, @GiantSnowman: If you continue to post the same thing over and over again of no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. I will be more than happy to report this to ANI, as at times this is rather like how many have be barred from AfD. Simply voting delete or keep with lack of explanation is tiresome. Especially for an article such as this, when there are huge amount of sources online for this icon boot. Govvy (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I did explain. Feel free to take to ANI. As I have explained elsewhere, and as others agreed with me, your respectfully shitty attitude in dealing with people who you disagree with at AFD will not win people around to your way of thinking. GiantSnowman 17:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first citation, the author runs a blog which sells the products he reviews. While it may be published by ESPN, there is a clear COI there given that ESPN are publishing his websites name in connection with the review. Your second citation, I couldn't find any editorial staff or policies for that website. TarnishedPathtalk 03:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for responding. I struck through my comment about cherry picking. — Maile (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Maile66, no worries. Enjoy your day or night. TarnishedPathtalk 02:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @Govvy: I find nothing objectionable about @GiantSnowman:’s comment. His comment about pinging is a reasonable alternative to following multiple AfDs, comment-by-comment, after leaving his own comment. I suspect an ANI discussion would ultimately reach the same conclusion, perhaps after some contentious, gratuitous drive-by comments from the peanut gallery. Either or both or neither of you might get sanctioned - it’s a crap shoot. ANI is not worth it, trust me.
- —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had edited the article to remove unreliable sources, however an editor has seen fit to restore the unreliable sources because they think it appropriate to include blogs, websites with no locatable editorial policies and sources which don't back up the claims made in articles because "they are not black listed". After removal of unreliable sources there were only two sources left in the article. One of the sources was about California banning kangaroo skinned boots and barely mentions the product. The other is about the product being offered in white. TarnishedPathtalk 11:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Adidas Copa Mundial, Adidas Nemeziz, Adidas Predator, and AdiPure into single article on Adidas football boots, eliminating everything that is either unsourced or sourced to non-independent sources (which is quite a bit of it). BD2412 T 01:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An even split between keep, merge, and delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:54, 22 October 2023 (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.