Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of RAL 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   keep. Merge discussion should be initiated at the article's talk page — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

List of RAL colors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no indication of WP:notability. A list of colours. Disputed prod. The RAL color standard is sufficient to cover this standard without adding additional articles. noq (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * strong oppose Procedural - If it is sufficient to have the content in one article (RAL color standard) then use the merge process. HSRtrack (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You still have not addressed WP:notability - you keep picking up on secondary issues and ignoring the primary one. noq (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll see your WP:N and raise you an WP:ATD. This is obviously part of a notable topic with an obvious parent article. Analyzing it as if it wasn't doesn't help us figure out what to do with it, if anything. Can you discuss it in terms of its informational value for our coverage of the RAL standard, and/or address WP:SPLIT or WP:LISTPURP? postdlf (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge, no case for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Is the nominator suggesting a merge discussion instead of a delete discussion?  D r e a m Focus  00:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * delete as potential copyvio. I'm concerned that this list falls under the EU concept of a database right, for what is a commercial list and protected as such.
 * NB - this is without prejudice to the ongoing sockpuppet investigation of the article's author. I don't hold with deleting valuable articles just because they're the creation of a banned sockmaster, but there is a rights issue here that we still have to observe. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * American copyright law does not recognize database rights, therefore neither do we at en-wiki. Systems such as this would not be copyrightable, but instead fall under patent law protection or maybe trademark (if anything). Further, this system was first published in 1927, and was not a "commercial list" but instead the creation of the German government (for public use as a universal standard, no less). So even if otherwise copyrightable under German law, it would be in the public domain under either of those grounds. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the US doesn't recognise this, but as the country of origin does, don't we have to be precautionary anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, and no we don't. postdlf (talk) 13:43, 21 May 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.