Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Crayola crayon colors (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 09:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Crayola crayon colors
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The meat of this article are list of colors, all of which are unsourced and approximate. All the "sourcing" is for the fact that the products exist; even that is mostly deadlinks and links to the Crayola website. What little good information there is could be upmerged to Crayola. I am also nominating List of Crayola colored pencil colors for deletion. It has no sources at all. p b  p  15:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep As far as lists go, it works. It's limited in scope, it's notable.  The article has problems.  There was a lot of effort a few years ago to address them.  They have not been addressed.  But, "It sucks" isn't a valid reason for deletion outside of WP:NUKEANDPAVE.  Although, the hex approximation of the colors does bother me.  I would assume that the EXACT color is some sort of a trade secret, though.... not sure how that can be sourced.  But, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, at the very least, it shouldn't be deleted.
 * Comment BTW, last time this came up for a vote, it was a speedy keep. Roodog2k (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to the nom It looks like the pointer to the AfD discussion at the List of Crayola colored pencil colors page actually points to the 2009 AfD for this topic. I know little of the AfD protocol, or I would change it myself. --Mark viking (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This article seems to satisfy the requirements for a list-based article according to WP:LISTN: the topic as a group is notable; there have been a number of controversies over the years specifically over the color naming in the Crayola crayon products, e.g.,, , , and . There is a rather extensive history of the Crayola colors at the secondary source The Definitive History of the Colors of Crayola, . As a consequence, individual members of the lists may not need to be sourced, nor do they need to be notable. This sort of reasoning is why articles such as List of colors: A-M can continue to exist, despite many more colors, yet worse sourcing. For the purposes of verification of the color names and when these colors appeared, it is fine to use a primary source such as the web page http://www2.crayola.com/colorcensus/history/chronology.cfm Crayola Crayon Chronology]. Such information is illustrated (beautifully) at secondary sources such as The History Of Crayola Crayons, Charted. Other secondary sources found with a quick search are 120 Crayons on the Web or the crayola color schemes at colorschemer.com. So the color names are verifiable. The color representations are problematic and approximate, but all represented colors on Wikipedia are approximate because of dependence on the monitor or print medium. There is a WikiProject Color that discusses these issues. Their answer is to create normalized color coordinates We may wish to follow their lead in this case. A notable topic and surmountable article problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, lead me to recommend keeping the article --Mark viking (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * keep/clean - ( note I was the the nominator of the previous AfD though in hind site I was probably a bit pointy with it. ). This list itself is notable ( agree with above votes ) but the article has a lot of WP:OR issues, especially with the hex codes. These columns should be removed. There is a systemic problem with original research for color coordinates in a large number of color articles including the confusion that RGB space includes all colors. The proper way to fix this though is not to take the list articles but get it fixed on a wider scale. I tried for awhile but have mostly given up myself. PaleAqua (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but kill the hex I'd be surprised if the hex numbers are the result of anything more than someone somewhere sitting down, trying some stuff out, and saying "yeah, that looks about right," which makes it a textbook case of original research. Other than that, the content is reasonable. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that a bunch of numbers came from stuff like archived crayon picker page. Notice the links contain Code = hex number. I believe those numbers were what was used. Still that seems to be original research to me. Later versions of the page removed the numbers from the links and showed a simulated splotchy drawing of a crayon on a white background if I recall. Never found anywhere were the pages specifically stated that those RGB coordinates were the crayon colors, and given the fact the some of the crayon colors fall outside the typical RGB space seems wrong to use them anyways. As an additional interesting note, some crayons that are different colors actually have the same Code number on the link. For example take a look at pacific blue and blue green at the bottom of that page just left of black. PaleAqua (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep As others note above, this is a notable list topic. It isn't just a list of notable things that happen to be related to each other; the relationship itself is notable and worthy of detailed analysis.  Them From  Space  22:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per above Davey 2010   Talk
 * Keep As mentioned in the previous AFD, new colors did get news coverage at the time.  D r e a m Focus  09:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Reference #11 until a few weeks ago led to a Crayola website page that had pictures of the Standard Color crayons, and when you drew your cursor over the tip of the crayon, the hex code and the rgb codes appeared and these matched the codes in the list. Apparently, Crayola doesn't keep up its website very well because it is a dead link now.  Keraunos (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I replaced the dead link with the original Crayola link provided by Pale Aqua (archived crayon picker page), which is apparently the original source of the hex codes on the List of Crayola crayon colors--I remember seeing this link before.  So there is now no problem with the sourcing.  Keraunos (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I still think using those values is original research. It's not really much different then using a color picker to get the numbers. The reasons they had codes in the link was so that the list of chosen colors would show the approximation of the picked colors in the custom box creator shopping cart. When the page was still live if you manually went to a link with a different Code number it would show the given crayon name with the wrong color square in the shopping cart. It was basically an implementation detail that reveal approximate RGB colors. PaleAqua (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also note that the most current custom box creator does not have the hexcodes visibly listed, you have to check the webpage source you to find them as the background colors used behind the transparent images that simulate the tip of a crayon. I will note however that the online Crayola SureSource has been very consistent with the numbers the use over several versions of that page I've seen over the years when I spot checked them. PaleAqua (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum that page is run by a third party probably by license and not Crayola itself. PaleAqua (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to meet WP:LSC, and has third-party sources that do appear to show notability for the subject. Is it the most wonderfully well-written and well-sources list ever?  No, but it does seem to be notable enough to warrant keeping the article, as the list subjects are relevant enough to one another as demonstrated by the reliable sources. - SudoGhost 14:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep- Seems to meet WP:LSC, and although the hex codes as noted above can no longer be found, I would hate to lose this information. It is very handy, and it is something notable in American popular cultural history, as the references provided attest. enigma_foundry (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2013 (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.