Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenal F.C. strip

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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal F.C. strip

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

This article is in danger of meeting criteria A10 of CSD. It is a regurgitation of Arsenal F.C.#Colours with content sourced from sources such as blogs and the club's own website. There seems to be no justification for a dedicated article to the kits, particularly considering that there is no evidence of significant coverage of the kit itself versus the club. C 679 21:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 21:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C 679 21:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. C 679 21:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need for a separate article, no evidence that this has been covered in significant detail by independent, reliable sources. Past consensus that these kind of articles are non-notable can be found at this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD. Giant Snowman 21:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sources to fulfill WP:GNG and the rationale given that it is mainly from blogs is incorrect as ESPN and HFK are not blogs. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me which ESPN reference you're referring to as not being a blog? I only see one link and it's got "blog" in the url. C 679 21:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the HFK appears to be a tertiary source, at the bottom of the article you can read their references. Looks something like a Wikipedia article in that regard. In light of these two points, GNG looks a long way off. C 679 21:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between blogs done by anybody and blogs that are on reliable sources and require editorial checking before being posted. Tertiary sources are acceptable, given HFK are citing where they got their information from. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of HFK - even had some of my own research published there - but it is not enough to justify Wikipedia's notability requirements. Giant Snowman 22:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Still disagree, considering the main HFK link lists a fansite as its first link and other sources including the arsenal website. Even if it was a "reliable" tertiary source, tertiary sources are not acceptable for establishing whether the GNG is met. So I do not understand how you think the article has "sufficient sources to fulfil GNG". C 679 22:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the club article. We really do not need articles on club strips, which seem to be changed with incredible rapidity as a means of fleecing fans of their hand-earned wages, so that they can spend their money on a copy of the new strip, long before they have worn out its predecessor. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any sources in the article to indicate the notability of the subject. That and the precedent set by the AfDs linked above should be enough to seal the deletion of this one. – Pee Jay 21:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Happy that there is clear consensus that articles on kit that they are not desired except where there is substantial third party discussion. No indication that the history of the Arsenal kit or badge has attracted such discussion. Fenix down (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough independent notability, in general, and what there is (surrounding the copyrightability of the crest, mainly) is dealt with in more detail in the club article. Originally, the creator of this attempted to expand the relevant section of Arsenal F.C. with multiple images, during that article's FAR which I was helping with at the time. Didn't realise they went on to create a separate article. There's little here apart from some of the images that isn't already in Arsenal F.C., and much of the text of this article is unattributed copy/paste from Arsenal F.C., which is a bit naughty. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2013 (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.