Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Ajax kit history


 * 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 Merge and redirect to AFC Ajax. Merger may be performed from the page history as needed: there is clear consensus that the standalone page is inappropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

AFC Ajax kit history

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

These kind of pages are not notable per WP:NOTGALLERY and past AFD consensus. See also ongoing discussion at WT:FOOTBALL. There should be nothing more than a brief section on the parent page. GiantSnowman 12:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * pinging all those who have contributed (so far) in the WT:FOOTY discussion (and apologies if I have missed anybody!). GiantSnowman 12:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete A overview at the main or history article is enough (3-4 kits). There is no need to have a seperate article to cover every kit. Most times, they are "the same" with just some small changes. Kante4 (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge some major content to AFC Ajax then delete or Delete directly, per nom and some content fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:GNG Hhkohh (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence that the subject has been discussed in independent reliable sources enough to pass WP:N, nor that the parent article is so large that such content needs to be spun out. Content also fails WP:NOTGALLERY. A similar article was deleted some years ago at WP:Articles for deletion/Arsenal F.C. strip. As the entire content apart from most of the kit images was copied unattributed from the parent article, and most of it's still there, the original content of the parent article can easily be restored from the page history without need for merging. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, unnecessary and not notable, violates NOTGALLERY. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Julio, Struway etc. Any notable changes should be dealt on main club page, season page, or history pages, via reliable sources and significant coverage - not only brand or sponsorship whims. Koncorde (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I haven't looked at them all, but the Netherlands and Italy national team kit articles follow the pattern of the club kits: a paragraph or two of information which could easily fit into the main article (and in some cases have been copied out of that very location to flesh out the separate articles), followed by vast collections of minor variations to the same outfits. Not needed in my opinion. Crowsus (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge as needed, per Hhkohh, then delete. This isn't notable as a stand-alone topic, though it isn't a WP:NOT problem; lots of sports team articles have "galleries" of uniform changes, and this seems well tolerated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge then Delete: Put important information - sponsorship history, notable kits - into AFC Ajax and delete everything else. Per others regarding WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:GNG. Clyde1998 (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - as I said at WT:FOOTY, the main thing it tells me is that the team's kit has always been a white shirt with a broad red panel down the front. That can be covered by a single sentence in the club's article. We don't need a massive gallery of microscopic variations on the same basic kit. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge I think WP:NOTGALLERY doesn't necessarily apply here, as a visual kit history can be encyclopedic (see for instance ). I think this would be a valid category on the club's general history page. Consensus is against a standalone article, and as a note to the closer, a single user has created a number of these pages in the last two months. SportingFlyer  talk  04:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge then delete There is a certain amount of content that is perfectly acceptable in the main article as of current it's not on the main article and a merge of said content is needed to sort this issue out so to straight up delete doesn't seem logical in anyway, especially the prose and showing the points of the main kit, it's origin, it's history. I am totally confused by the argument that a football clubs kit isn't notable. This makes no sense to me, as anyone that has seem that football club play will generally recognise the kit and associate that kit with that club, this is notability through identity. The addition of photographic images of any player ever playing for that club is photographic evidence of said notability. The main argument seems derive from an older consensus that we shouldn't have standalone articles on kits and I am in agreement that we don't need these articles. We can establish the kit identity, historical parts of it in a few words on the main article of any football club and provide a few kits as reference. I am also surprised that not one person have added that this is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK argument for deletion. Govvy (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Firstly': Please don't focus on the only kit evolution. Yes, right. Most of club and national team had traditional kit. Therefore, Every season, Kit had some small changes. I respect the opinion that small change is not important. But this is very relative concept. Most Museums of clubs and national football teams had Kit history room. And They are displaying kits of most seasons. Also many people want to watch the kit evolution through whole season. I mean, To many people, Especially football fans, Small changes in kit also have very important value. Kit history is also part of Football history and records and Football culture.
 * Keep the seperate article

For example, Please check out this video! History Of Germany's World Cup Football Kits. As you know, German national football team kit is always White shirts and Black shorts. In every major tournament, Germany kits had small changes. Many people don't think that this video is meaningless. I think 225,000 people watched this video.

Also, Please check out other country's wikipedia: es:Categoría:Uniforme de selecciones de fútbol, it:Categoria:Colori e simboli delle squadre di calcio giapponesi, pt:Categoria:Uniformes de clubes de futebol Baseball have separate kit history article in English Wikipedia.. Category:Major League Baseball logos and uniforms

Other country's seprate kit history and Baseball articles are keeping without deletion discussion.

Secondly' We can expand seperate article with various topic. For example, Recently, Football Kit is not just shirts. Footbll kit is a kind of business. I'll want to update informations like belows


 * England national football team kit deal information.

Thank you for listening my opinion. Please keep the article and Please expand together!


 * Comment: first point, the England kit article should not and will not be treated any differently to the other articles which have had the text pasted from the main articles followed by a big gallery of kit graphics. Even if the text was different, the topic is still too weak for their own article. Many of the contributors on English Wikipedia are not English nationality, so there is no reason why they would be more sympathetic to an article on that topic, and conversely, the English editors might give it more attention and be more critical.


 * Second point, English Wikipedia is a different project altogether from other languages, their rules are different and most of the articles I have read in other languages are inferior to enwiki in terms of sources and reliability. The writing doesn't seem great either but I rely on machine translations, so can't be sure. There seems to be be less oversight on what is included, so in some cases there is more stuff but a lot of it probably shouldn't be there. The point is, you can't compare wiki articles in Spanish and Italian and expect the same content to be in the English version.


 * Third point, no I don't think the Red Sox article is very useful either. If you're making a comparison, that article isn't just a page filled with graphics, although three references for all that text is very poor and I'm considering suggesting it for deletion having now seen it, although I really don't care about that sport or any topic associated with that country. I mean, one of the main things about baseball is that a lot of the basics have stayed the same for 150 years, traditions are good but then what is the basis of an encyclopedia article saying that a uniform has been the same with minor differences for all those years? Like the football articles, it could be included in the main team article. Crowsus (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * FYI Someone just tried to WP:CANVASS me. I have no opinion either way on this discussion, but I want to make sure you're aware. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * AGF notwithstanding, given the similarity of that comment to this one by you, did you log out to canvass other editors? GiantSnowman 08:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , Firstly, At that time, I can't login due to private situation. And I don't want to canvass, I just want to inform sports kit article contributors of this discussion's importance. (I thought Muboshgu was interested in sports kit article, I didn't force him to support my opinion. Please Check out my comment.) Anyway I really sorry about that. Actually, I didn't know the WP:CANVASS in detail. From now on, I'll be careful of WP:CANVASS policy.

In my defense, If this discussion is about just Ajax kit history article, Honestly, This discussion and deletion of article is not important a lot. But you said to me. "If Ajax Kit history article will be deleted. You'll nominate all football kit articles for deletion. As you know, Discussion make people tired and Discussion need scrafice of precious time. In general, Wikipedia users don't want to join discussion. I worried about that wikipedia users misunderstood this discussion. In other words, Many wikipedia users don't know this discussion's influence. Maybe, They can think that this discussion is about just Ajax Kit History Deletion.

If all seperate football kits are deleted by result of this discussion, By same logic, Wikipedia can delete seperate Baseball Uniform articles. Besides, In the future, In English wikipedia, We can't create separate sports kit articles.

In my opinion, Again, This discussion is not simple discussion. According to result of discussion, All separate football kits can be deleted. Therefore all dedications and contributions about sports kit aritcles will come to nothing.

In conclusion, I think Discussion title is unsuitable, (This article is suitable: For example, Articles for deletion/Separate All Sports uniforms/kits), Also, Discussion need more participants and enough time. +	Footwiks (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2018 (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.