Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adidas Superstar


 * 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, but needs sources added per this discussion. Dreadstar †  16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Adidas Superstar

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No references, commercial Nsaa (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per WP:ADS. archanamiya  ·  talk  23:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral This isn't spam; it's a shoe made by Adidas, a well known shoe manufacturer. I'm not sure about whether an article is warranted for a specific line of shoes, however. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is THE most well-known Adidas line, akin to the Nike Air Jordan, I believe. Needs references, but there's nothing obviously spammy about it. --Dhartung | Talk 01:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Maybe the most well-known Adidas line, but that does not give it, reliable 3rd party sources are required, can't find any. ChessCreator (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Where are you looking? There are scores of articles in the New York Times alone. The very first result says, With its trademark shell-toe design, the Adidas Superstar is one of the most recognizable basketball shoes ever made. Worn by legends like Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson, the shoe was popular among players in the 1970s. In the 1980s it was reborn as a fashion statement thanks to the rappers Run DMC, who not only wore the shoes, but also recorded the track My Adidas. Now, 37 years after the initial release, Adidas has created a special version of the Superstar for each N.B.A. team. --Dhartung | Talk 11:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I was looking at the Adidas Superstar article it has no reference to establish notability and for something that is bordering on WP:ADS it really needs to have clear notability. ChessCreator (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - one of the major product line of a major company. No reference is not the same as unreferenceable.  With a New York Time article already identified, I'm sure some other digging will get more reliable sources.  I fail to see how this article is a commercial.  I'd say it needs cleanup with all of the messy trivia, but that's for editting. -- Whpq (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless independent sources are added. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - How is the New York Times not a reliable source? -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not in the article... but keep after reviewing. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep assuming the sources will be added. But it is careless to nominate for deletion without at least looking superficially in Google for sources; given the amount of real work to do at AfD, it's time we started either considering such nomination disruptive or requiring evidence of a search before listing them. DGG (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment' - Agreed DGG, much time is wasted with Afd's that have claims of no notability when little effort has been made to find . I say that even admitting that in this case I did not find notability but at least I did look. ChessCreator (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're completly right. I should have done some reading here DEL before I did the nomination. Shouldn't the keepers add the source to the article?, Ref. WP:PROVEIT "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.". Nsaa (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.