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. LizRead!Talk!06:48, 29 October 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.
GiantSnowman17:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, or delete ALL brand name articles. Please see
Category:Adidas, and
Wikipedia:Brands. The other Adidas are no more, nor any less, advertising than this one. And it's not isolated to one brand. Don't cherry-pick only select Adidias articles to delete.— Maile (
talk)
10:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Maile66, I'm not cherry picking Adidas. Refer to the following other football boots that I nominated:
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.
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.
TarnishedPathtalk11:45, 16 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.
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. LizRead!Talk!06:48, 29 October 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.
GiantSnowman17:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, or delete ALL brand name articles. Please see
Category:Adidas, and
Wikipedia:Brands. The other Adidas are no more, nor any less, advertising than this one. And it's not isolated to one brand. Don't cherry-pick only select Adidias articles to delete.— Maile (
talk)
10:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Maile66, I'm not cherry picking Adidas. Refer to the following other football boots that I nominated:
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.
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.
TarnishedPathtalk11:45, 16 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.