Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Hypervenom

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Hypervenom

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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. After removing unreliable sources, there are three sources left (even then I'm not sure about them). One source details Nike giving the product to a famous athlete, another source details a product release and the last details the product being discontinued. This a far shot from broad in-depth coverage of the product. A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS that would establish WP:GNG. TarnishedPath^talk 07:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Sports, and Football. TarnishedPath^talk 07:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new article on Nike football boots or similar, which would be a notable general topic. Giant Snowman 10:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think it is impossible to have an article about a product line. For instance, a car model may clearly be notable for a page, but what makes it notable is significant coverage, independent of the subject in reliable secondary sources. From what I have been able to find, this is not the case here. The sourcing primarily leads back to advertising copy and product releases and lacks independence. The creation of a football boots stub seems like a bold move to provide a WP:ATD, but I don't believe that, at this stage, even the general subject has been shown to be notable. A redirect to Nike, Inc. would be more useful at this time, if anyone feels redirect is suitable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 24 September 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.