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. None of the two keep votes take into account that only the club website (primary and non-independent) has been used to source the material. Merging has been considered, but several paragraphs on the history of an element of the jersey design does seem to overburden that article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FK Partizan strip[edit]

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

Following consensus in previous AFDs here and here, it has been determined that these kind of articles are not needed, any relevant content can be included in the parent article. Giant Snowman 13:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - to be honest the topic is already covered to overkill at FK_Partizan#Crest_and_colours, there is absolutely no need for a separate article. Sources show no coverage of the kit independent of the club itself. C 679 08:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is much that is not mentioned in the main article. Or move to the article FK Partizan, but this should not be delate.--Nado158 (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why the existing 600+ words in the section of the club article is not sufficient to cover all encyclopaedic content related to the kit? C 679 11:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the Controversies and the Kit sponsorship--Nado158 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to FK Partizan - There is no reason the content of this article can't be merged to the main page, especially since the subject isn't particularly notable independently of the main topic. – Pee Jay 00:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm just wondering why is this strip less notable than Arsenal F.C. strip, Manchester City F.C. strip and Parma F.C. strip? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Secondly, I think they are all non-notable. Please see my 'To Do' list where I intend to AFD them all in time. Giant Snowman 14:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i find it notable. Interesting subject, with nice overview, not directly related to the main subject in its historical sence. Therefore, notable on its own basis. -WhiteWriter^speaks 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A subject isn't notable just because you find it interesting. A subject is notable because reliable, third-party sources cover it in a non-trivial way. There are no reliable, third-party sources that do this for this subject. There may be plenty of sources that talk about changes in the club's kit supplier or sponsor, but I am yet to see anything that covers the history of Partizan's kit. – Pee Jay 00:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here that merits a separate article. Waffling about a club's kit manufacturer, design and sponsorship is trivial. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:30, 5 June 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.