Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Crayola crayon colors


 * 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   speedy keep. Withdrawn by creator. tedder (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Crayola crayon colors

 * – (View AfD) (View log · AfD statistics)

Per comment at Talk:List of Crayola crayon colors by Timothy Perper. His reasons listed if I understand them correctly are an NPOV concern that the majority of sources used were from Crayola's websites, a question of notability, and the list in effect being a commercial for Crayola. PaleAqua (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete (nominator) - Agree with some of the concerns brought up by Timothy, hence the conversion of the comment into an Afd. PaleAqua (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * speedy keep Based on majority of comments below, recommend speed keep per WP:Snowball. Still strongly believe the article has numerous problems. PaleAqua (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It's no more an advertisement for the Crayola company than a list of chewing gum flavors would be an ad for a chewing gum company. What, is there some place that we can purchase retired crayons?  Hard as it may seem to believe, the colors of the crayons have made news throughout the decades .  Believe it or not, people write about this in books about marketing  and  and .  I think of this more as a list of "colors" whose names became familiar because of a label on a crayon.  Perhaps we would feel better if it incorporated names assigned to other boxes that carry 64 different hues.  I'm sure the nomination is made in good faith, but "pure advertising" isn't a fair assessment of the article. Mandsford (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems to comply with NPOV. How is it a commerical for Crayola? Is a list of centuries by Dravid not promotion for him too? warrior  4321  02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this is as synonymous with Americana as apple pie is. Who DIDN'T grow up with Crayola?  In this day in age, this is a very notable list, IMHO. ArcAngel (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cornflower, every time Crayola changes a color in the 64 box, it makes news. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepThis article is more then just a commercial for Crayola, it also contains historical information about the listed colors, and while the table set ups in the Specialty Crayons section may not be the most encyclopedic option the bulk of the content is completely appropriate. The article is about the primary product of an highly recognizable company, there is no question about the fact that Crayola crayons have had a cultural impact, if they meet the notability requirements to get their own stamp then they are probably meet our notability requirements. As for the NPOV claim, as of writing not a single line on the article is marked as having a disputed NPOV and the original talk page comment provides no examples. Additionally there are a number of non Crayola owned sources and in my read through nothing glaringly non NPOV stood out. Vantar (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep...WP:CS..."Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires attribution for direct quotes and for material that is likely to be challenged." Are you challenging? Is this a particularly controversial article that needs opposing reliable sources? This is a perfect example of what Wikipedia should contain. I love it. I would give it a bolder Keep if wiki-markup would only allow.--Knulclunk (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Medium Delete I would much prefer that the authors and editors provide documentation for all the data they present in the article. My critique, included in the talk page of the article itself, lists problems with POV, reliability, original research, lack of citations, among other things. The first, large table, contains color swatches, color number identifications, and names; that section provides only two references but neither lists ANY of these. So where do the color swatches come from? If they are taken from an (uncited) Crayola website, then there may well be problems with copyright violations; if the author provided the swatches from his own files, records, or work, then the table is original research. And if these problems can't be fixed -- well, then delete the article.


 * I have added more details to my comment on the talk page -- it might help if everyone goes and reads it rather than depending on only the brief paraphrase of my comments provided by PaleAqua. If you look carefully at the article, you'll see that the tables contain a great deal of unreferenced material. And I am afraid that a postage stamp does not prove that a list of Crayola colors is notable.


 * Timothy Perper (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see the article talk page for more detailed comments about problems with this article and reasons favoring its deletion and merge, after editing, with the Crayola article. The comments made above, by a number of people, were written BEFORE those comments were made. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't see a significant NPOV problem. Yes, the article has issues just like the vast majority of articles, but that is not sufficient reason to delete it.  I would support changes like removing the RGB values if they have no source, etc. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree re: NPOV (No POV issues - someone needs to explain this rationale to me). Agree re: notable list (Yes - It's notable, as a large number of people (and some Wikipedians) have used this brand of crayons at some point in their lives). And having done the same colour testing as Timothy Perper did here at the relevant talk page I can see that whoever nominated the RGB and hex colours probably grabbed those color values from the colour swatches available on line at the Crayola website. I slso don't think that this comes under WP:OR, as it fits the criteria of routine calculations (color sampling via computer program being reasonably routine these days). But when all's said and done, what actually appears here seems to be a classic inclusionist vs deletionist debate that really doesn't do 'the project' any favours. For what it's worth, I think it's a perfectly valid article and I can see a time when a curious person would ask themselves the question "I wonder how many Crayola colors there are" and being rewarded with a great Wikipedia answer. Mark5677 (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is actually one of my favourite Wikipedia articles. I don't see this as a significant NPOV issue.  Not sure about copyright concerns re: PaleAqua, that might be an issue to look into DRosin (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep very well sourced article. Interesting articles like this make wikipedia a great place to visit. RE: Nominator's statment: "NPOV concern that the majority of sources used were from Crayola's websites" See: Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete I think there is some misunderstanding about how to address NPOV concerns. Ikip (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Super Strong Keep Crayola is undoubtably an integral part of every child's life and this article brings joy to countless of people throughout the cyberspace. Besides I don't think you'd want to deal with an angry MLIA mob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.186.78 (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep To delete requires some sort of rationale. That Binney & Smith is the authority for the colors it made is not a reason for deletion.  Heck, Ben & Jerry's is the source for its list of flavors, and there are many others.  No one else, in fact, could be an authority on the crayon colors .  Collect (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a wonderful example of what Wikipedia can be. Topic is clearly notable (as indicated by 3rd party coverage) and article is reasonably well-sourced. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP This is a wonderful page! --  R. Mutt 1917    Talk  19:22, 6 December 2009 (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.