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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff City F.C. strip

[edit]

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

There is a real lack of meaningful content here and there is already a relevant section on the parent article – Cardiff City F.C.#Strips; there is no need for a separate article as the kit has no notability independent from the club. It's not covered in its own right in multiple independent sources. C 679 22:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 22:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a break-out from the main article (delete the duplicate content in the main article). You could merge back the additional content here, but the main article is quite long. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everything here is already in the main club article (in fact the vast majority is a word-for-word duplicate), and I see no need for the content to be in two places at the same time. The main article is not excessively long -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus in this recent AfD. Giant Snowman 10:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep it does appear to be all copied from the main article, there is no need for duplicate information. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not find the keep argument convincing in that the strip information is not seemingly notable to warrant such a detailed section or even a sub-article. This stance is supported by the fact that the strip does not seem to be on the radar of any independent publications and perhaps enter the domain of trivial information. Mkdw ^talk 07:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cardiff City F.C. - even though the answer is not the same for every "Foo F.C. strip" articles, this one should be deleted as there is no reason to split it from the Cardiff City F.C., and this article should be redirected to parent article. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to Cardiff City F.C.#Strips. That is the proper place for it to be covered. This FORK is completely unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think a redirect is particularly useful here considering the unlikeness of the redirect name. Readers will invariable search the main article name opposed to main article name + article of clothing. Mkdw ^talk 19:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a redirect doesn't seem to be worthwhile. C 679 09:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Cardiff City F.C. strip is a perfectly plausible search term, IMO, but the content should not be in two places at once. – Pee Jay 11:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think with out a link it's extremely unlikely. It would be as likely as any of the other sections in the article including 'Shirt badges' and 'Numbers'. Mkdw ^talk 06:57, 28 January 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.