Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike HyperAdapt 1.0

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 no consensus WP:NPASR. ansh 666 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nike HyperAdapt 1.0

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

Does this really need a separate article? The details can easily fit in the Self-tying shoes section. If it is to stay separate, then it should be added to the Nike navbox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing adequately demonstrates notability. Possible merge suggested by the nom can be considered by editors working in this topic area. Why not start a discussion on a talk page before going for the jugular here? ~Kvng (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely disagree with Kvng that the sourcing demonstrates notability. There are two references, one an article in Wired that relies completely on interviews with the designers and is not intellectually independent therefore fails the criteria for establishing notability. The second reference from sneakscore fails WP:RS since there is no information on who is behind this website or who wrote the review. The entire article is promotional with no indications of why this show is notable. Fails WP:SPIP and fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was satisfied with the two sources cited. If that doesn't do it for you, feel free to do your own search. I just did and found three other bylined sources in the first couple pages of news results: [1], [2], [3] ~Kvng (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2017 (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.