Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Bradford City kits
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. PeaceNT (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gallery of Bradford City kits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
After a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Gallery of Bradford City kits, I have decided to nominate this gallery for deletion. Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Relevant kits or significant changes should be included in Bradford City A.F.C.#History or History of Bradford City A.F.C.. Most kits pictured here are simply redefinitions of an existing pattern. This is common among football clubs, for merchandise reasons. AecisBrievenbus 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions and in the list of England-related deletions. AecisBrievenbus 00:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable collection of images. – PeeJay 08:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Highly unnecessary level of detail, any truly significant kits can be mentioned in the main article (see for example Gillingham F.C.#Colours and crest, which mentions the club's original colours which were significantly different, when the change to the current colour scheme was made, and the controversy over the proposal to change the colours again a few years back), everything else (changes of sock colour, etc) is just unnecessary and much better covered here ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to Bradford City A.F.C. as failing WP:NOT.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not worthy of an encyclopaedia (and I'm saying that as the article's creator!) GiantSnowman (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2007 (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.