Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Total 90 Tracer

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 redirect to Nike, Inc.. Courcelles 08:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Total 90 Tracer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An stub article about a soccer ball (!?) made by Nike, used as the official ball in various leagues in 2010-2011, with no sources other than a link to Nike themselves. Should IMHO be deleted as pure (outdated) promo. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 22:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment It would be the reaction of most people, I would imagine, that articles on soccer ball brands would be outside the the scope of a real general interest encyclopedia, but we appear to have many of them. I cannot see any rational basis on which to distinguish this one from others, so unless we are going to step up to deleting the lot, it's hard for me to say why this one should be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not an article about a soccer ball brand, it's an article about a specific model of soccer ball. The brand article is Nike, Inc.. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 07:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nike, Inc. as not independently notable. Giant Snowman 11:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nike, Inc. Does not merit its own article. JMHamo (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2014 (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.