Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NikeTalk


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

NikeTalk
Notability suspect, and current article is too POV and spammy even if arguendo notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 00:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, but needs big rewrite. The author seems to think that wikipedia is place for an ad, using words like we and I MadCow257 00:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup per MadCow257. 47,060 registered members seems to have crossed the notability threshold.  Hmm, and on a sneaker discussion forum.  Who'd have thought.  --Hyperbole 01:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability provided in the article, which is horribly written.   dbtfz talk 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEPthis is the best sneaker site around.
 * Delete, those interested in keeping are advised to assert and prove this meets WP:WEB. No evidence as yet.  Dei z io  03:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hyperbole. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  09:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Ter e nce Ong 13:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I also have my doubts about their claims to tens of thousands of registered members and hundreds of millions of page views; you mean to tell me that fifty thousand people get together to discuss sneakers?  I'd like to see the proof of that.  RGTraynor 14:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & Traynors trainers' point. {edit to add signature} Eusebeus 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Hyperbole. Davewild 20:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 1st: Check out Niketalk.com it says 47060 registered members and ezboard doesnt lie. 2nd: Check out the Alexa rank for Niketalk.com and you will see " Traffic Rank for niketalk.com:  78,786" and that it averages 73,115 and it HAD had over 500 million visits. 3rd: You guys are probably clueless to how big the shoe game is now but its huge 4th: Its more then just a shoe site. Way more. Jordan 20:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My argument against that: the shoe game may be large, but it's not a group that expands exponentially.  It has a marginal growth rate to other hobbies.  If someone is serious about collecting sneakers, they already know about the site or will find it way before coming here; so to me that fails notability in as it's not a curiousity to look up a particular fanforum. TKE 03:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The pedantic, sophomoric assertions of wikipedia's self-professed gatekeepers aside, those familiar with the sneaker collecting subculture would easily attest to NikeTalk's "notability." The site has received mention in Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press stories, and most recently in the March 13th issue of Time Magazine.  If one of the pseudo-intellectual "arbiters" of Wikipedia managed to accomplish anything in life worth mention in even one of these publications, I have to believe they'd be drafting a wikipedia entry within seconds.  Yes, the article should be cleaned up - but its critics have no place impugning its merit based on the most perfunctory and prejudicial of arguments.  The site's traffic and notoriety are EASILY verifiable.  All you had to do was LOOK.  Instead, many of you dismissed it offhand simply because it deals with tennis shoes and not pewter orc figurines.  The article's inclusion only enhances the scope and utility of wikipedia.  Don't confine this resource to your own narrow interests. RakimAllah 02:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * User's first edit. --Nlu (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Major cleanup is needed. The Time mention pans out: . However, if spite was a valid reason, I'd say delete per RakimAllah. ccwaters 03:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, subject is notable. That said, RakimAllah, you're not really choosing the best way to champion your cause. --Ashenai 06:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. The article is pretty mu on point but some facts need to be cleared up. And to the doubters, please visit niketalk.com to look at all the statistics. - wiki_editor_wutang
 * User's second edit. --Nlu (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak Keep The pedantic, sophomoric assertions of wikipedia's self-professed gatekeepers aside, those familiar with the sneaker collecting subculture would easily attest to NikeTalk's "notability." That's cool and all, but a subculture is sub to a culture. Collecting Nikes is not a culture in it's own right, it's a small small hobby group and this is a fanforum.  Let'm find it on google as this is not an advertiser. I dislike the approach taken by the keeps, and that influences my delete.  But upon more perusing a good point is made in a bad way, there are other fanforum articles.  The mentions in major publications go to notability rather than verification in this is not a cite, but the alexa results hold up to looking up other shoe collecting sites.  TKE 03:32, 29 March 2006 (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.