Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harlequin (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 No consensus; lots of productive discussion going on; im sure this can be solved without an Afd hanging over its head. John Vandenberg (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Harlequin (color)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable color name, not supported by the cited sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete. Can we get an expert on the subject here? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 06:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment already notified WikiProject Color. I can't find nice sources but then again I'm not an expert on colors-- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect Delete - Per AfD reasons. The color name is non-notable. The source given for the color coordinates does not list the color in the set of charts mentioned. The color name does appear in another chart on the same site http://tx4.us/nbs/nbs-h.htm but without supplying coordinates, but that does not make it notable. Per http://tx4.us/nbsnotes.htm the coordinates were were adjusted and also appear to be from scans of old plates. So this means the coordinates based on the ISCC-NBS color dictionary at that site are at best suggestive and not authoritative. PaleAqua (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing my recommendation to merge based on Wrad's comments below. I don't believe it is notable enough for it's own article, but a shades of green article makes sense. PaleAqua (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, pending further investigation. Was sure it was a hoax, but surprised to find some uses, e.g. ,. Also, the references I'm finding all seem to show the same shade of green.  However 'Harlequin' is much more commonly used to mean a pattern.Sensiblekid (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The shades of green in that second article almost appear to be based on Template:Shades of green, specifically look at this old version. Notice the entries at the end are in the same not-quite alphabetical order. PaleAqua (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm! Good point. I missed that. Also need to watch for the old trap of references that are derived (but not obviously) from WP. Might change my vote, but want to research it properly first. Will hit the refs when at the library tomorrow if I get time. Sensiblekid (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The important thing about this color, even though the name is not widely used or known, is the fact that it is a color on the color wheel between X11 green and chartreuse (the color that was called yellow-green before the X11 web colors were invented in the 1990s).  The colors on the bottom and on the right of the plate it is shown on the reference are the most saturated colors that represent the colors on the color wheel.  It is useful and important to have a name for the color between green and chartreuse on the color wheel, just as we have the name amber for the color between yellow and orange on the color wheel. Keraunos (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Keraunos, you've made a big deal about "color wheel" colors in many color articles, but your observations remain unsourced. There is nothing in the cited source about a color wheel, or about it being exactly halfway between those.  Amber  at least has the property that people recognize it as a color name and have some idea what color it is; certainly not the case for Harlequin, a color name that was in use in some field between 1923 and 1930, but it is not used today, as far as we know.  Alternative names include green-yellow and yellow-green, as you can find by googling the hex code. Dicklyon (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The colors "green-yellow" and "yellow-green" are specific web colors. They have nothing to do with the color harlequin, except that they are all shades of green. Keraunos (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * True, there are named colors yellow-green and green-yellow in some sets (both green-yellow and yellow-green are X11's YellowGreen accordiing to wikipedia. And I think I mispoke and meant to be commenting on the unsourced remark that was there that Charteuse was a color previously called yellow-green; whatever.  But there is no harlequin, or other nameed color for that matter, between Chartreuse or yellow-green and green.  You had to dig pretty deep to fill in what you thought was a gap on your color wheel.  The underlying color wheel that you base so many color articles on is itself not documented any place I can find.  Presumably you're using the Hue numbers from HSV and HSL as your basis and looking for color names you can distribute around it; is there any source for such a set of color names?  If so that would be defensible, whereas your own version is not so. Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep pending further investigation per Senisblekid, with no predjudice against re-nomination at a later date if necessary. Looks like there's potential here for there to be more about this topic but obviously some expansion and additional sourcing is needed. The fact a term isn't commonly in use anymore (as I think is the suggestion being made by some comments above) isn't necessarily a cause for disqualification from Wikipedia. Since it's not a hoax, I say let the article have a chance to develop. As this isn't a WP:BLP keeping the article around for a bit does no one harm. 23skidoo (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It has had over a year to develop already. I pruned it back to what was sourced or sourceable, after I got hold of the one book that it appears in, and I think we should just put it out of its misery now. Dicklyon (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tentative keep per Sensiblekid and 23skidoo. If it was used, say between 1923 and 1930, but no longer commonly, then people looking at old materials might have need to look it up to understand those materials.  If possible, the article should be expanded to talk about the history of its use. (Who used it and when? What would someone be more likely to call the same color now? Etc.)  Aleta   (Sing)  00:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The only thing known about it is that it's listed in a 1930 book that says it was first used in 1923. Not notable. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Shades of Green (Right now it's a hotel page, but that should change.) Let me quote the color wikiproject's guidelines on this: "Wikipedia may include articles on color names only where there is sufficient notable and verifiable information available to write a non-stub article on aspects of the use of the color name. Verifiability of the use of a color name must go beyond finding a web site that lists or uses the name." Just because a color is listed on a few web sites doesn't mean it's notable in itself. Wikipedia does not need a separate article for this color. Wrad (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, There already exists an article Variations of green. But I agree that Shades of Green is the best article name for where to put Harlequin and other greens that would not merit an article. PaleAqua (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * “Variations” (or similar) is a better name than “shades”, because “shade” has a separate, technical meaning, making the phrase “shades of green” ambiguous. --jacobolus (t) 10:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes the one of the sense of shade is the darkness (or sometimes lightness to darkness) of a color. The problem for me with variations is that it implies that variations say of green aren't really green. If we are to avoid the term shade varieties might be better. Though this discussion probably belongs back at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color. PaleAqua (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, good point. I second the varieties of green suggestion then. :)  --jacobolus (t) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge as above. --Dystopos (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep at this time per Sensiblekid, 23skidoo, and Aleta. The color has a historical reference, and has appeared in some color charts and is used in two sites as color names. Arguments about various color spaces and color charts seem overly technical in this context.  But the argument that makes the most sense to me is that by Aleta, that is, keep as a historical reference since notability is not temporary. However, I will be interested in Sensiblekid's findings and may change depending. BTW, the Merge !votes are suggesting that this be merged to a Florida resort complex.  — Becksguy (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the merge votes are suggesting a page be created for less notable shades of green. The page name Shades of green would be a logical name though the Variations of green page already exists. If the shades of green name was used for such a page, it would be logical to move the hotel page to Shades of Green (hotel). Considering that there is already a Category:Shades of green (as well as one for other major colors) and a Template:Shades of green so it would be make sense to use the name Shades of Green. PaleAqua (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, with Biographies, you have to have 2000 references to yourself to get a page. Harlequin as a color has about five, if you're generous. It doesn't deserve its own page by any stretch of the imagination. It needs to be merged into a page like PaleAqua and I have suggested. Wrad (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, my bad, as you are absolutely correct, PaleAqua. Somehow I missed the parenthetical phrase (Right now it's a hotel page, but that should change.) And yes, if this were to merge, your suggestions on article/category naming make sense, although the defenders of that military resort article might object. As far as sources: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, but this is is not an extraordinary claim, it's just a color. The notability, although not very strong, seems sufficient, given the arguments so far, especially the 1930 book. And I might point out that the various colorspaces, color charts/tables, the various color profiles, standards, and color coordinate systems are technical and complex and may not make sense to many readers or editors. Also, commercial color names are marketing driven, much like typographical font names, which add confusion to any color naming system. I oppose both merging and deletion. — Becksguy (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't see how this remotely meets Notability guidelines. This topic certainly doesn't have “significant coverage in reliable sources”.  Please notice that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  At best this belongs in a footnote tucked into the corner of a lengthy article about historically changing color names, or perhaps in wiktionary (it's essentially a dictionary definition).  It does not warrant its own article (or even section of an article) in Wikipedia.  --jacobolus (t) 10:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to merge it at first, and maybe work to improve a varieties of green article to see exactly how that would be structured at a high-quality level. If that doesn't work, then I think we should delete it. It's hanging by a thread either way, but I'm not willing to cut the thread until we've tried fixing a varieties of green article. Wrad (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * delete Really, my position is move to wiktionary. There isn't much to say about an obscure color in an encyclopedia article. The article serves as a definition, wikipedia is not a dictionary, ergo, delete or move.maxsch (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This discussion appears to have stagnated for several days now. Perhaps it can be closed as no concensus?  Aleta   (Sing)  14:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that there's a consensus to delete. The only argument in favor of keeping was from Keraunos, who created it, who says it's important because of "the fact that it is a color on the color wheel between X11 green and chartreuse", which is a fact taht he made up.  There are no sources for this color other than one squared label by this name in one color dictionary from 1930; there's no evidence that it has used since then, and evidence that is was not used much before then.  It's a blip; nothing; nada.  Delete it.  It can be mentioned in one of the one articles as another name one used for a green variant; that's all.  It's certainly not notable on its own. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment There are five editors in favor of keeping with arguments, as well as three for merging (which are not delete !votes, and should not be weighed in with them). That hardly amounts to a consensus to delete. I agree with Aleta, it seems like no consensus to me also. — Becksguy (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment While my opinion is merge, my opinion is closer to the delete camp than the keep camp. I think the color should possibly be given the benefit of the doubt and included in a shades of green article, but that it doesn't deserve it's own page. As for tallying up the !votes, the deciding factor should really be the arguments presented. PaleAqua (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a vote. The supporters of the "keep" position have still given no reasons why this is notable.  --jacobolus (t) 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Correct, this is not a vote, which is why I used the word "weighed" rather than "counted" referring to !votes. There are several strong keep arguments given by various editors above. And merge reasons also. Just because someone doesn't think the reasons are important or doesn't like them, doesn't mean they aren't there. Granted, notability is not very impressive here, but it's sufficient. (1) McGraw-Hill is a very respected technical publishing house and is an unimpeachable reliable source. Their 1930 book alone would be a sufficiently RS, as this is not an extraordinary claim. (2) The fact that this color has historical roots is a major reason (if not the major reason) for keeping it, as notability is not temporary (per Aleta and guidelines/policy). And that's what makes WP a great encyclopedia. (3) That the color is still being used is evidenced by the two refs from Sensiblekid. (4) This color was being used before color TV became common, obviously before the web based color models, mapping, and colorspace systems, before high speed web newsprint 4-color (CMYK) printing processes, and before still or movie color photography (Kodachrome in 1935) and (Technicolor in 1932) had much impact. (5) The first major serious mathematical based colorspace system was the CIE 1931 colorspace, after the color Harlequin was already in use. (6) One can not always easily map historic colors into modern colorspaces or models, and that is not a disqualification for notability. (7) The color is listed in the Template:Shades of green, and has been since it was created in June 2005. And as an article since September 2006. (8) And finally, based on the arguments here from Wrad and PaleAqua, I've relaxed my opposition to merging into Shades of Green, as a fallback if Keep fails. But I still strongly oppose Deletion. There's too much information that's worth saving. — Becksguy (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of these arguments are based on fallacies. The color's "historical roots" consist of one mention in one source, which source seems to have made it up arbitrarily.  The name doesn't seem to have been used much before (apparently at least once in 1923, woo!), and didn't stick.  Given that this is essentially a dictionary definition, I checked the OED, where there is no mention of harlequin having anything to do with a particular color (instead it seems to mean, in one of its senses, "partly of one colour and partly of another or others").  What the hell does color TV have to do with anything (i.e. points 4–6 make no sense).  As for 7), the shades of green template has been stupid since 2005, but this hasn't been changed because no one cares enough to change it—that hardly implies notability, and should have no bearing on what the proper course of action is today.  There are many word definitions which are used once, by a single source, and then never adopted more broadly.  Given that such utterly non-notable items don't even fit in the scope of a dictionary (which requires more than one use before inclusion), why are they supposed to fit in Wikipedia?  Finally, you haven't pretended to address the objections based on WP:NOT --jacobolus (t) 09:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the color is being used today, as noted above. The continued existence of the template and article implies consensus, and not caring enough to change something is consensus by default. What specific objections based on WP:NOT do you have in mind, as it covers many topics? Also, Harlequin can mean a color that appears to be different colors depending on how the light reflects from it, as here, or this paint vendor here, or from PPG paint here for example. I am suggesting that there are several meanings to Harlequin in it's color aspect that can be developed. My comments about color TV and colorspaces is to show that much of the technical research in color occurred after the color was first in use during the 1920s.  This would help explain the difficulty in mapping that color to modern systems as an unreasonable rationale to delete. This article still seems to be sufficiently more than just a definition to me. — Becksguy (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * None of those links are reliable sources. We can't just put everything every paintshop in the world says about every single color. They all have different ideas and none of them are authoritative. Wrad (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming those links are RS, they are just there to additionally show that there's more to this article than just a simple color definition, which seems to be the claim proffered for deletion. And as to the paintshops, I said just about the same thing in my original comment about color names being marketing driven, so we agree on that. However, the McGraw-Hill book from 1930 is authoritative. — Becksguy (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. You can't use unreliable sources to prove anything. That's why they're unreliable. You can't use them to "show that there's more to this article than just a simple color definition." It's just ludicrous. That's why we're saying no links have been provided to show that this is any better than a dictionary definition. Wrad (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2008 (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.