Deletion of AFC Ajax kit history

Comment: 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  argument for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CONTENTFORK)

Comment: per nom and some content fails   and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATS||WP:GNG)

Comment: Put important information - sponsorship history, notable kits - into AFC Ajax#Kits and crest and delete everything else. Per others regarding ,   and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGALLERY||WP:NOTSTATS||WP:GNG)

Comment: No evidence that the subject has been discussed in independent reliable sources enough to pass , nor that the parent article is so large that such content needs to be spun out. Content also fails OTGALLERY. A similar article was deleted some years ago at rticles 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTGALLERY||WP:A)

Comment: I think  doesn't ''necessarily'' apply here, as a visual kit history can be encyclopedic (see for instance http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/). 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGALLERY)