Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beaver (color)


 * 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 "keep" arguments, unlike the ones for deletions, are not made in terms of Wikipedia's applicable guidelines and are thus less persuasive.  Sandstein  08:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Beaver (color)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable colour of crayola, verging on dicdef bobrayner (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A color that has been in use since 1705 would seem to be notable enough to keep. The color is just sourced from Crayola.  It could have been sourced from other color lists that it is on.  Keraunos (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep All colors are notable, this one around for centuries.  D r e a m Focus  04:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All colors have been around for, well, forever. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If you have sources which address the subject directly in detail, please share them; I couldn't find them. If you don't, then it thoroughly fails the GNG. Lots of colours exist; but existence is not a sane threshold for creating an encyclopædia article. bobrayner (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there is virtue in having all the colors from a standard color chart, even if some individual colors are not so notable. I don't think there is an explicit policy based argument for this, so I will have to fall back to Wikipedia is not Paper and Ignore All Rules. Francis Bond (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment See also:
 * Articles for deletion/Arsenic (color)
 * Articles for deletion/Iceberg (color)
 * Articles for deletion/Mantis (color)
 * Articles for deletion/Polar bear (color)
 * Articles for deletion/Timberwolf (color)
 * Articles for deletion/Denim (color)
 * Articles for deletion/Sangria (color)
 * Articles for deletion/Ceil
 * Articles for deletion/Persimmon (color)
 * Articles for deletion/Wheat (color)
 * Articles for deletion/Flavescent
 * Articles for deletion/Pink-orange
 * Articles for deletion/Xanadu (colour) (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Tuscan red
 * Articles for deletion/Regalia (color)
 * Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of significant use of this term as a colour name, let alone substantial coverage in reliable sources. The only source given is a mere list on which the term appears, but inclusion in a list is not substantial coverage. Also, the article is no more than a dictionary definition, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. To answer the reasons given for keeping:
 * 1) The fact that a word has existed since 1705 does not make the subject which the word refers to automatically notable. There are many thousands of English words which are recorded from many centuries earlier than that, but we don't have articles on them all, nor even on most of them. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
 * 2) "All colors are notable": why? Who says so? Is there a guideline or consensus that says so? Simply stating that it's notable without giving any explanation why is not helpful: see the last paragraph of WP:ITSNOTABLE.
 * 3) "I think there is virtue in having all the colors from a standard color chart". "I like it" is not a reason for keeping an article. Other editors have different opinions, and presumably if I say "I don't think that we should have an article on every colour from a colour chart" then that carries as much weight as Francis Bond saying he thinks we should. We have guidelines to indicate what is acceptable as evidence of notability, and "some editor likes it" isn't in any of those guidelines. I think if any administrator used "Ignore All Rules" to justify keeping an article without evidence of notability just because some editor likes the article but can't think of a policy- or guideline-based reason, then that administrator would be liable to be subjected to to some questions. And when the user who thinks we should have articles on every one of the entries in a colour chart actually says "even if some individual colors are not so notable", we clearly have, in effect, "Keep: It's not notable, but I think we shouldn't require articles to be only on notable subjects". That is totally contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The colour chart referred to is an inclusive list of pretty well every word that the authors could find referring to a colour. Wikipedia, by contrast, is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and requires evidence of notability.
 * The long and the short of all that is that not a single one of the "keep" reasons is grounded in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per JamesBWatson. The existence of a shade of colour is not a justification for an article.  -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per WP:AWW. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Color names are chosen arbitrarily, subjective, and different at each paint manufacturer. There is no standard on what each color should be named. Moreover, some of these color articles have no content other than a weak dicdef (WP:NOTDIC). As for the X11 colors, the listing at X11 color names is more than enough and really all you can write about it. The articles on the primary colors could have a list of common names of some shades of that color. What's next, an article for each Pantone code? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;No evidence that this is a widely accepted name for a color. Beavers themselves vary in pelt color. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all as well argued by P199. Various manufacturers invent various names for their paints or dyes or crayons, but that does not mean that every one of them should have an article. They are simply manufacturer's designations and not notable in themselves. (I guess it isn't enough to say "delete all"; since they each have their own AfD discussions, only some of which have closed, I guess I need to go to the others with the same opinion.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. JamesBWatson hit the nail on the head here. Sure, the color exists. Sure, the color name is centuries old. So what? An article on some obscure color just doesn't cut our notability requirements.--Slon02 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.