Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Considered


 * 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. Consensus is to delete, if you believe that sources exist to satisfy WP:GNG, you need to present those sources, not just mention the results of a Google search. ST47 (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Nike Considered

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article has been tagged as a WP:GNG concern for over 10 years now with no improvements made. Ignoring the fact that the article is blatantly promotional, there do not seem to be many reliable secondary sources available about this product.


 * - painfully brief
 * - quite in-depth but might be promotional/not independent
 * - again, doesn't appear to be independent
 * - probably independent, not sure if reliable source

I couldn't find anything better in a WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone 17:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as it is a brand/type of shoe. Also doing a quick google search on "Nike Considered" brings up articles created anywhere from 2008-2020.  If people are still writing about/mentioning it, I see that as notable. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable third-party coverage, only sneakerhead/fashion blogs and non-notable sites. The most substantial press for this brand was from way back in 2008, then it drops off a cliff. The article itself is blatantly written like an advertisement to compensate for its near-nonexistent sourcing that includes Nike's official website. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  21:02, 14 October 2020 (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.