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. The article has been massively improved since the nomination. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adidas Telstar 18[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability, no references. Vague article, and a lot of articles on footballs could be combined into one article e.g. "Adidas footballs" Master Of Ninja (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This kind of seemed like a good idea to combine all Adidas soccer balls into one article, until I reviewed a few articles of previous World Cup footballs. They are reasonably lengthy and very well referenced. That's a good indication that this will also become a complete article. It passes WP:GNG, no doubt about it, even though it's just a soccer ball, due to its association with the FIFA World Cup. BTW, this should not have been an AfD, because the nominator seems to have intended to merge articles, for which this is not the appropriate forum – see WP:MERGE. But I can't imagine that would have been successful, either. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep might be a case of WP:TOOSOON as the world cup hasn't happened yet, but the design has been leaked and there is a fair bit of coverage surrounding the subject. Coverage will only increase as the world cup draws nearer, but the article arguably passes WP:GNG already. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created the same day the ball was officially released with a big presentation in Moscow, and the balls are available to buy, so it's really not TOOSOON. Good restraint, I thought, as I'm sure fans were itching to start the article when the fuzzy photo was "leaked." Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I apologize that I invoked WP:TOOSOON, what I was trying to mean is that the coverage for the subject would grow in time so maybe it would have been more helpful the article could have been started later. I wasn't trying to say that the article isn't notable. None the less my !vote stands as keep. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, just discussing. I forgot to mention the balls were in use for 2017 FIFA Club World Cup playoffs/finals, too. I expect there will be later coverage on the performance of the ball, what players think of it and so on. To me it's just a ball, kind of trivial, and nowhere near as important as many people who don't get articles. I like sports and footballs (whatever code) as much as the next guy, but I don't care about the specifics of something I kick, so I agree with Master of Ninja philosophically (I actually have these discussions about footballs IRL). Nonetheless, it easily passes WP rules. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG as it associated with World Cup Football World's largest sporting event. Coverage will only increase as the world cup nears in 2018.Agree with Jack N. Stock it is not a case of TOOSOON. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hurrygane (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Hurrygane (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Keep - Assume the nomination was before the current level of sourcing was achieved. Normally a ball would not be notable, but this specific ball, because of its specific use as the FIFA World Cup ball has gained significant coverage in a number of media outlets across the world. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct - there was no references and no sourcing for an article which pains me massively. Certainly the referencing is much more acceptable now. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pains me to have an article on a ball, but GNG is met... Giant Snowman 09:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Pharaoh of the Wizards. @Master Of Ninja and Jacknstock: In response to the idea of an article about Adidas footballs, it can work, while co-existing with this article and similar articles about individual footballs. There can be an "Adidas footballs" article that can serve as a list-class article, for example, or simply an informational page about the history of Adidas footballs, with each article of a football being reconsidered as branches of it, if you understand what I mean. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · ) 11:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The balls used in previous World Cups have their own articles too. Clearly notable — lots of references available. Brad v 23:04, 22 December 2017 (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.