Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink-orange


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Pink-orange

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable colour. Some ghits mention it in passing when describing the colour of another subject but no in-depth discussion of pink-orange which would establish notability. bobrayner (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No substantive content -- this article does not say anything that one could not already infer from its own title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 10 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/Beaver (color)
 * Articles for deletion/Flavescent
 * 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 – the entire article contents is "Pink orange is a mix of the colors pink and orange." And even that's unsourced.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability, Wikipedia is not a dictionary: either of those would have been sufficient reason for deletion. In fact in my opinion it qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion A3: "Any article ... consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, ... (etc)", as there really is practically nothing more than "a rephrasing of the title". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 12 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 13:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sourced and not notable. Now please wait while I mix "amber" and "mahogany" to create a new color. We're not a dictionary, and we're not a color manual. Let's keep the hordes of colors at List of colors.--Slon02 (talk) 17:36, 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.