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. While some editors argued that the article's content could be salvaged by draftifying the page, merging the content into broader articles, or even broadening the scope of this particular article, the opposition of these alternatives was significant enough to the point of lacking consensus to do so. Hence, delete. ✗plicit 05:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. All included references read like paid advertisement. I've just removed a couple of links that were direct links to sales sites. This page has been clearly designed for advertising. At the very least this needs WP:TNT. TarnishedPathtalk 06:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTADVERT. I'd not agree with the statement above that "All included references read like paid advertisement", but only because some of the sources don't mention the boots at all, or merely mention them in passing, though apparently being cited for things they don't say. The apparent claim to notability, that these are one of the first football boots intended for women is so vague as to be inconsequential (Nike alone seems to advertise 99 different styles of football boots for women [1]), and is directly contradicted by the first source cited - a Guardian piece noting that other companies have been designing boots specifically for women prior to Nike's product. Sources discussing a genuinely-article-worthy subject - the need for sports equipment designed specifically for women - have been co-opted to pad out an article otherwise built around the (closely paraphrased) regurgitation of Nike marketing-speak. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, there was one citation where the only reference to the boot was underneath an image which was literally and advertisement for the boots. I was of half a mind to remove that reference. TarnishedPathtalk 06:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would've been a great test case for the archival concept permeating WP:VPIL at the moment -- there are a few sources that could be valuably added to Football boot, but not in any sort of broad-scope merge. I'm somewhere between deleting and draftifying at the moment, but I'm really not ideologically a fan of forced draftification, so landing at delete pending further discussion (Kingsif doesn't seem to be online at the moment and may wish for it to be draftified or selectively merged). Vaticidalprophet 06:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: Having read the article and the sources, I agree that this is a TNT-worthy, heavily promotional writeup full of assertions of shaky provenance. That such an article made it to DYK is a profound failure of process. Ravenswing 07:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No consideration seems to have been made regarding whether this topic passes NCORP. The sources in the article are a piece by a freelance contributor in the Guardian's women's football newsletter; an invited paper on women's football sports engineering (coauthored by people with clear COIs) that doesn't mention the product; the BBC piece where the only mention of the cleat is in an image caption; a piece in Sky Sports with no byline that is borderline-illiterate in places and clearly regurgitates Nike promotion (e.g. Sky: The Phantom Luna has a new and innovative circular stud pattern, named the Cyclone 360, which will allow players to move more freely with agility, precision and security on the pitch.Nike: Phantom Luna features a breakthrough new traction pattern, Nike Cyclone 360, reducing rotational traction and helping players move with agility, precision, and confidence on the field.); a Forbes contributor piece with egregious comma usage that briefly mentions the product; and slightly later Sky Sports piece (bylined) that just reprints all the promo text about the Phantom Luna from the first piece.
Delete: I can see nothing notable about a footwear manufacturer realising that they have to make shoes of a subtly different shape for female feet. This is a normal thing when one makes shoes. WP:ADMASQ, and fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shockingly novel thing when it comes to football boots, actually. Kingsif (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I elaborate below, I agree. Kingsif (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is some significant coverage like the Guardian article, it isn't enough for WP:NCORP (and isn't enough for WP:GNG). Multiple sources containing in-depth coverage are required.—Alalch E. 07:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try a lil' experiment. Several sources don't even mention the Phantom Luna. That makes this a bad article, but makes the content cited to these sources valuable to reuse elsewhere (like Football boot suggested above, or a broad-concept article around women-specific sports equipment). Hence we're not meeting WP:DEL-REASON #4 ("Advertising [...] without any relevant or encyclopedic content"). Draftification seems appropriate, but is unlikely to yield anything broad-concept article I'd like to see, and there's nothing to "incubate" because this will likely never be notable. After reading Siroxo's essay on similar AfDs, I think we should instead try a little experiment: keep, boldly move to a new broad-concept title about sportswear designed with women's physiology in mind, and trim the Nike-specific parts to the bare minimum (i.e. keep just the "Background" section). That won't be a great article at first, but it'll be better than nothing, and will IMO better respect the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Definitely shouldn't have made DYK but let's not overcorrect. DFlhb (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely like to hear Siroxo's thoughts here, because this falls right into the sort of messy situation we were talking about at VPIL. I don't think there's a clear 'keep' path here, even in merge or redirect format -- the title isn't too great a redir. But there are usable sources here that can be reappropriated in a much broader context. Vaticidalprophet 07:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A move without leaving a redirect might be appropriate here. IMO the instruments at our disposal for AfD can be too blunt at times. DFlhb (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't dived too deep into this subject, but I am supportive of working towards an article around women's sports equipment. The background section seems quite promising on an initial read through, even citing academic work. Such an article has to start somewhere. Seems like a viable REFUND candidate for this specific purpose. —siroχo 06:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well...are these refs really that valuable? The linked study is coauthored by multiple people affiliated with The Football Association and individual football clubs (including ones directly sponsored and kitted by various footwear brands) as well as sports performance tech companies(*). The study referenced in the BBC source is not yet published and is also industry-sponsored. The comments section of this article also features the remarkably apt contribution I’m not sure I would like wearing football boots. I’m a Male I just like to check everything out on the Newsround websiteI would be more persuaded by research that does not emphasize the need to develop women's fit footwear by people affiliated with the companies making women's fit footwear.(*)Dr Katrine Okholm Kryger, Dr Nicola Brown, Dr Georgie Buinvels and Dr Athol Thomson have received funding from sports technology companies for research purposes. Dr Craig Rosenbloom, Dr Sean Carmody, Ms Alicia Tang, Dr Ritan Mehta, Dr Naomi Datson and Ms Elena Jobson are or have recently worked on elite women’s football for teams sponsored by sports technology companies. Ms Leah Williamson is a professional player and is sponsored by Nike.JoelleJay (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The refs are garbage. If there was going to be content written elsewhere as suggested it would have to be with different refs. Nothing redeemable here. No baby in the bath water here. Yeet it. TarnishedPathtalk 09:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; I skimmed the study but didn't check the Acknowledgements section. DFlhb (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of ACL injuries within woman's football is something that definitely deserves an article. But having done a, admittedly quick, check this article seems to overemphasise footware as the issue. The notable issue,the injuries and the underlying causes of them, is pushed into the background of a shoe article. It's definitely a noteworthy subject that I hope someone picks up, but this article is a very poor way of highlighting it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't have time to update the section about female predominance at the ACL injuries article, introduce a section about lack of women's boots at the football boot article, or create a focused article, but (as I mention below) we need content about the history of gender disparity in the technical side of sports, too. Kingsif (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree; I meant that, the issue is what interested me and I felt needed coverage. With encouragement to create DYK-eligible content, I did what you said: focused on the footwear and put it in a tangential article that probably doesn't meet GNG and I filled out with primary refs heavy with promo. I was agreeing, but suggesting if you want the issue to be done justice on Wikipedia you might have to do it yourself (rather than hope someone picks [it] up). Kingsif (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have another year or so of work doing what I'm doing now, and the subject deserves someone better than I to write the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the comments above. I'm genuinely stunned that this made it to DYK. Hell, before it was pruned today, the "Design" section opened with "The Nike Phantom Luna is part of Nike's Phantom range, which is intended for precision with power.[1]" Just look at the source for that and weep. That several people thought this was remotely fit to adorn the front page, well, it leaves me almost speechless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to draft. When news stories like the one in the Guardian are used with respect of Indian and South African companies they are described at WP:AFD as advertorials and not accepted as independent sources when assessing notability. So the same should apply to Nike.-- Toddy1(talk) 11:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As creator. When I saw both Guardian and Forbes (subject-expert contributor, acceptable per RSN) coverage on top of a Sky Sports report mention, I had hoped to start a stub or draft. Encouraged to get more women's football hooks onto DYK, I expanded it with info direct from Nike - not a great choice. Either way, the intention was to get coverage of the somehow-revolutionary-in-2023 concept of creating football boots to fit women on here; with admission of my own laziness in expanding to get to DYK, I would have !voted for the above-suggested selective merge of content regarding this lack of football boots for women to a section of that article. Considering the vitriol here towards using industry-sponsored research (a.k.a. most research) as a source, it seems clear that some users would go and remove that so what's the point. Kingsif (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy, and trouts all round for those who help give this entire cock-up more oxygen than it needs. SN54129 11:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets WP:GNG, per Kingsif's comment above, and per new sources added today. A very notable shoe for its approach in pioneering women's football shoes. If I am a woman and a football player then this shoe would be for me, but heaven forbid, let's forget women and sports on Wikipedia and get back to the important stuff, the big games this weekend! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but allow re-creation - I think WP:TNT probably applies here, per the above. However, we should allow for selective WP:REFUND so that an actual article can be written, if there is one under this. Whether it's part of a list or a stand-alone, is immaterial. - jc37 13:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - I don't think sourcing is enough, but there is potential. GiantSnowman 14:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new article about the female football boot, as it seems to have structural differences than a male version. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
20 year editor and I still can't get the hang of wiki text, ouch. Please trout me lol. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Drafify A very appropriate alternative per our actual policy of WP:ATD. Clearly editing can improve the article. WP:TNT and WP:REFUND are invoked above - and both imply that the topic is notable. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Advocating for draftification and hypothesizing a future refund by some editors does not mean that they did a WP:BEFORE, and an inference that the subject is notable made from their !votes should not be made. There is a legitimate disagreement about whether the subject is notable. If it isn't notable, I don't think that we should draftify because draftspace isn't a holding area for topics that proved non-notable after a full discussion. The article can be easily refunded at DRV when more/better sources appear and someone is interested to write about this topic in the future. —Alalch E. 15:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Attempts at saving it at the moment have resulted in a WP:SYNTH mess. This is not notable and if people want to write an article about something else let them write that article about that other thing without this current un-notable synth mess. TarnishedPathtalk 23:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rescope: I was gonna leave a lengthy source analysis here, but the long and short of it is that pretty much every RS cited here (with the exception of Sky Sports 2023) lacks significant coverage of the topic at hand, especially when broad-concept and manufacturer talk is discounted. There does seem to be the sourcing for a broad-concept article, though, and I'd be interested to see how that shapes itself. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the Sky Sports ref is full of minimally-reworded text from nike.com. JoelleJay (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and we consider them generally reliable...? yeesh. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably get a "Footy-Boots.com" discussion going at RSN... I consider myself too involved to do either, but at a glance the articles you list are unsourced promo disasters; I say this to show further regret at letting the standard of the Hypervenom article influence my editing of the Phantom Luna one. Kingsif (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a look at all of those articles and shaved off unambiguous sales sites and citations which did not say what was being claimed, but without some guidance on the remaining references I'm not going to proceed any further. Your suggestion is probably the correct way to go. Perhaps I'll do so latter if I have time. I don't know. TarnishedPathtalk 06:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any coverage of this as part of a more broad topic should be written from scratch, rather than starting with a commercial and trying to make it look respectable. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Attempts to fix this article while it's being debated have led to WP:SYNTH issues being introduced and I still don't see it passing WP:GNG because the majority of the references are garbage and/or barely mention the shoe in any sort of depth. TarnishedPathtalk 02:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. Everything that can be said about this has basically been said, including by the creator, who !votes to delete above. I suppose I may add that our sourcing policies have led us down a somewhat uncomfortable path, and this is what I see as the issue here, rather than folly on the part of the creator. jp×g 03:24, 9 September 2023 (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.