Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike ONE


 * 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. There is no consensus about creating a redirect from this page title to a target article so I will leave that editing decision up to editors. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Nike ONE

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Two years ago I've redirected it with the edit summary of "no evidence of notability for this fictional object, sources are passing/WP:PLOT, redirecting to Gran Turismo 4 (parent game". It was restored now with no justification, which is why I generally prefer PRODs/AfDs to redirecting (or unredirecting) without a discussion. Well, anyway, now we can have a proper discussion about this. I, of course, suggest re-redirecting this due to failure of WP:GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Video games,  and Motorsport. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete – I agree with your original rationale, but I don't believe it is worth redirecting since it is unlikely to be a viable search term (page views have been in the single digits for at least the last 3 months). The sources are extremely lacking and there is no way this could reasonably be expected to pass the GNG. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 13:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: It would be absurd to have redirects for cars in video games. It would be like redirecting B Dasher (which was deleted in this case) to Mario Kart. Sure, there's a couple news articles about the B Dasher, but it would still fail GNG and then a redirect would be undue. Same thing for this. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Why? I Ask Take a look at the Template:Gran Turismo series, there are others, although they generally look better, possibly notable, unlike this one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's different in that it has full length pages; you still wouldn't want to redirect every concept car from GT to the game pages (such as those listed here). I also disagree most meet GNG. Take Ferrari Vision Gran Turismo where every source is between two days and fails WP:SUSTAINED. I think certain real-life cars such as the Fittipaldi EF7 are fine, though, to an extent. Some of the singly-made concept cars might also fail GNG. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Why? I Ask By all means, start an AfD for the Ferrari one and ping me. I think you may be right. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm... There may be a valid redirect in this case with Vision Gran Turismo (which I initially skipped over thinking it was just another car). I think a better discussion would be to talk about that page. Do you think there's any chance of that surviving an AfD? I could see it. Note that NIKE One still wouldn't be redirect-able there, though. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not fussed if we either delete or redirect. Could perhaps Merge to the relevant section under Gran Turismo 4. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's not notable enough for a separate article. The car is briefly mentioned at GT4 but it's unsourced so if there's any notable information about the collaboration with Nike it could be merged there. Suonii180 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - doesn't independently meet the GNG, now or then. Indifferent on redirecting. I can envision adding a valid passing mention in the parent article, and I can also see it being scrubbed from the article in a valid cleanup attempt too. But if redirected, it should be a "delete+redirect" situation to stop the sloppy recreation efforts. Sergecross73   msg me  15:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect Nothing has changed, other than the redirect was un-redirected, which, if it continues, can be dealt with by education, semi-protection, or other regular editing that doesn't rise to the level of needing deletion. 5225C's rationale is reasonable, and I really appreciate looking at the pageview history, but that isn't a criterion under WP:R. The closest is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, which this is not. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not mentioned in the target, though. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ...Because you just removed it? That's pretty classic WP:DE, wouldn't you say, and pretty hard to WP:AGF about. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, because listing the cars of a racing game is WP:GAMECRUFT. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the content should have been removed, but Jclemens is right to say that it was improper to do so while this discussion was underway. At the least you should have noted in your comment that the reason the subject wasn't mentioned in the target was because you had removed it as cruft. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 06:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not wrong to remove it while under discussion; that's arguably the best time to remove it. Why would it matter if it was removed now or later if the result is the same? That's the entire point of WP:BOLD. And either way, I was still right. It currently is not mentioned at the target, and I mentioned my reasoning under the page history. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the fact that the content was on the page during the discussion was material to the outcome and relevant to some !votes. Like I said, at the least it should have been mentioned here. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 06:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I doubt it would matter either way. You shouldn't base your votes on whether it's simply mentioned at the target. If it were truly encyclopedic and worth preserving, then most would vote to add the information to the parent if it were missing. That's obviously not the case. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted your deletion because it was the status quo and relevant to this discussion. Does that make your statement false? If so, please refactor your statement that it does not appear at the target article. If not, then please concede that it was improper of you to state its absence in the way that you did--that is, two minutes after you had removed it yoruself. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're going to revert it simply because someone removed it in a way you didn't like and not based on the merit of it being there? That sounds something like the WP:DE you've been accusing of to me? Why? I Ask (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you please stop WP:IDHT about your WP:DE? The issue isn't the content, it's your conduct. By re-reverting my restoration of the material without discussion, you demonstrate a commitment to WP:BATTLE conduct. Multiple editors have called you on your deceptive response here when your immediately prior edit had been to remove the mention in question. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, multiple editors support it too. The discussion is obviously heading toward removing the page and potentially the mention as well. This isn't me battling, it's being bold and fixing something that'll probably happen. Sure, I should have mentioned I removed it. But would it matter? It's going to be removed anyway, and, honestly, no person should vote solely to redirect on the basis of it being in the article; if it deserves a redirect, a merge and then a redirect is due. I understand that you want to make sure editors are engaging in fair and balanced discussion, and that's fair. But, honestly, your constant WP:WIKILAWYERING (this isn't an isolated instance from what I've seen) rather than reading what consensus there is (to remove it) is tiring. We're talking about a single unsourced sentence that WP:GAMECRUFT specifically forbids (whether you agree with the MOS or not). Why? I Ask (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's going to be removed anyway is a very poor reason. Why not be patient and let the discussion run its course? I find this constant hiding behind WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO as an excuse to disrespect discussion frustrating. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 22:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, why not just go ahead and do it when the discussion has a (in my opinion) clear outcome? Different philosophies, different views (but I think mine is better). Why? I Ask (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose redirection to Gran Turismo 4. The mention there was removed in this recent edit by, and so such a redirect would not be suitable. I think better to merge (presumably to Gran Turismo 4 or Vision Gran Turismo), but I don't have a strong view re deleting or keeping. A7V2 (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merging would create a redirect by default, though? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 22:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Arguably yes, arguably no. It should be clear enough from my !vote that I oppose a redirect if this car isn't mentioned at the target as that would be unhelpful for anyone searching this or clicking a link to it. But if a sentence or two is merged then a redirect would be fine. A7V2 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment – As mentioned in the deletion nomination, sources are passing/WP:PLOT. I do not believe a merge is suitable since the content would remain unencyclopaedic no matter where we put it. I also oppose redirection per A7V2. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 08:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This mischaracterizes policy. Plot is fine as long as it doesn't become all that can be talked about in an article, so upmerging plot elements to the parent topic that does have, for example, reception, etc. sections is always preferable to deletion per WP:DEL. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet no other cars are discussed in Gran Turismo 4. Seems like it would be pretty arbitrary to include a select one and then no others. If your logic holds, I can create an article based on entirely plot sources for any trivial aspect of the game, have it challenged at AfD, and then get the content merged to the parent article, even though the content would never have been included otherwise. Since that is obviously not the case, I have much more confidence in my interpretation of policy. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 05:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's policy: non-notable content is fine in notable articles. Please see WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Other content guidelines still apply; namely WP:GAMECRUFT #7 which literally specifies vehicles. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * GAMECRUFT is part of WP:MOS which determines how we present content, not what content can or cannot be included in a Wikipedia article. People gaming MOS to try and ban stuff they don't like when they can't get it into WP:NOT is nothing new, and can be safely disregarded, because the scope of an MOS precludes that guidance. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of whether or not I like it, it's simply a matter of fact that the content that would be merged in this case would never be added to the article by any reasonable editor. Sergecross73 has correctly pointed out that the MOS specifically lists this sort of content as innapropriate. The MOS also directs you to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 01:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, MOS is not relevant in a deletion discussion because it only applies to how we present content. If something is to never appear in Wikipedia, that goes in NOT, which is policy. The MOS is neither policy nor guideline, but something entirely different. WP:NOTGUIDE is the actual policy, which expects coverage of notable fictional elements that would be forbidden by MOS:VG. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It literally says avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context. That's what this is; a gameplay item (i.e., vehicle). Why? I Ask (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe not the best usage of PLOT, but the general sentiment still remains - it's certainly within the realm of valid editorial discretion to decide it's not worth name dropping some random car names in a racing game. Sergecross73   msg me  19:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but this is an AfD discussion, not a discussion of the target article: The decision to merge/redirect here doesn't impose any editorial burden on the target article--the content can still be deleted from the target article and the redirect sent to MfD if that happens. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I've seen, we're just talking about a single unsourced sentence that amounts to "The car was in the video game." Unless you had bigger plans in mind, there's little at stake with retaining a redirect. Sergecross73   msg me  22:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing against retaining a redirect. That was the status quo. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like needlessly "kicking it down the road" and wasting the time of MfD participants if this AFD's sentiment is anything to go by... Sergecross73   msg me  17:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG outside of the game itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gamecrufty trivia, and in the custom WP:VG/RS search engine, it's has got a single hit: "Gran Turismo 4 finished": "The bundle, which costs an astonishing 33,600 Yen (€243), features a copy of the game, a Nike t-shirt, the aforementioned trainers, an unlockable "Nike One" concept car in the game (you need an EyeToy to unlock this, as the process involves taking a picture of the back of the box with the camera while playing GT4) and a padded black aluminium case to carry the lot in". The other results is a gameguide and a mention in the comment section. Not worth redirecting, as it shouldn't be mentioned in the parent article. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete without redirect. This is the quintessential definition of gamecruft. No mention is needed in the parent article and there's no reason not to remove it already (WP:NOTBURO). Axem Titanium (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with that removing the mention, and then immediately arguing that no mention exists is a WP:DE issue, not a WP:NOTBURO issue. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 22:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Read what you linked. People agree it should not be mentioned. I remove mention. Boom, no redirect necessary. It's a very simple process. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for it being hard to take these consecutive edits in good faith (especially when it was not even close to unanimous at the time) - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 22:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first time mentions of cars (and redirects to their game page) have been deleted. There also isn't really a point to saying WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP when you agree it should be deleted (thus no page history to save) and there's consensus not to mention it on the page. I'm done arguing about this. I've already conceded I could've worded it better, but it is, frankly, stupid to continue arguing about whether or not it was in good faith when clearly my goal was to improve the article and not to waste time. Clearly that had the opposite effect when one user would rather draw out this discussion with "rules" instead of commenting on the merits of a redirect or mention in the article. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please reread WP:NOTBURO. We don't need two processes to remove a piece of obvious gamecruft from its own article and in the parent article. Just one will suffice. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:NOTBURO covers someone expressing a position in the discussion, which Jclemens did, and then Why? I Ask maki an edit in direct opposition to that position and then immediately arguing against him? I also very strongly disagree with yet another instance of an involved participant in a discussion determining consensus before the discussion is closed. It's frankly disrespectful to opposing viewpoints. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 00:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, WP:DROPTHESTICK. It's pretty obvious where this is headed. Like I pointed out, in all of WP:VG/RS the Nike ONE car is mentioned once. It shouldn't be mentioned in the parent article and there is no redirect needed. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Please read NOTBURO." "What part of NOTBURO is relevant here?" "Please DROPTHESTICK." Lmfao, whatever. Keep moving the goalposts. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 16:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing for arguing's sake is all. I'm not holding you back though, argue away. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per Jclemens. Redirects are cheap. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 22:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's an additional source that can be added to the parent article if desired. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 16:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you a News24 subscriber? Or went for a trial subscription? I can't read the article without filling in my credit card information. A Google Lens image search brings me to the designer's website. The third image from the top, including the mirrored Nike swoosh. The headline of the News24 article is "Just do it! Will the Nike One car become a reality in 2022?" I'm curious to see what the article says that can make it notable to be mentioned. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:49, 17 January 2023 (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.