Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russet (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. While there are some arguments for merging or redirect, they can continue to be discussed locally; however, there is no consensus for deletion here. –MuZemike 20:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Russet (color)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A bunch of articles about colors, such as this one and the most of the ones linked in that AfD, were just deleted. This is an unsourced stub about a non-notable color. It fails WP:GNG and I'd say that it might even be a WP:DICDEF. Slon02 (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Slon02 (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Poorly referenced dicdef. No significant coverage of "russet" as a color has been presented to support the article. A given Pantone or Munsell color may have been given numerous names by merchants of paint or other colored things. Edison (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No indication this colour is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Unlike some of the spurious color names nominated for deletion, russet is a well-used, time-tested term of encyclopedic value. You may be familiar with russet potatoes, but the name is also employed frequently in the fields of biology, poetry, literature, fashion, textiles, and more. There's no reason it shouldn't have a place alongside other "species" of color such as fuchsia or aquamarine. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article has now been revamped, with a sourced color box. The color name has been in use since 1562, and it was used by Shakespeare in his play Love's Labour's Lost.  Therefore, this article should be kept and not deleted.  Keraunos (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * In Love's Labour's Lost, the phrase is "russet yeas and honest kersey noes". Russet and kersey are both coarse fabrics which are being used here as a metaphor to contrast with the earlier "taffeta phrases, silken terms precise.".  Such references to fabrics do not support this article about colour. Warden (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge - The information is fine, but this really needs to be consolidated into some larger article. Isn't there some WP guideline on these color articles?  There are so many of them.  I think they should be grouped into larger article, like "List of shades of red" or something.  --Noleander (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a good model article: Variations of pink has about a dozen shades of pink.  We need a comparable article that could hold russet.  And there are lots of other articles like that: Variations of green, Variations of blue, etc.  Russet may fit into one of them.  --Noleander (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found the list of brown colors: it was in Brown. I added the russet material (from this AfD article) into that article at Brown, so this article - if the consensus so says - can now be deleted. --Noleander (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I supported deleting a number of spurious color articles recently, but in this case, russet is a word that has been used to describe a shade of brown in a wide array of reliable sources for centuries. Shakespeare used the word. The The Painter, Gilder, and Varnisher's Companion, for example, discusses the color russet in great detail. The The Columbian cyclopedia, Volume 26, published in 1897, has a brief article on russet mentioning both the color and the apple named after the color.  If a paper encyclopedia can cover the topic, I think Wikipedia can as well.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  08:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cullen: What do you think of putting the russet material in the Brown article for now, and if some day it gets more detailed it can be split off with WP:Splitting article? --Noleander (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Russet is not a particular colour - it was a type of cheap cloth whose shade tended to vary and was commonly grey. This is now properly documented at russet and we don't need this article, whose definition is tied too much to a single proprietary source, contrary to WP:UNDUE. Warden (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As we all know, words can have more than one meaning, and I readily concede that russet also means a kind of cloth as well as a variety of apple and a variety of potato. However, I ask Noleander and Warden to read the Google link to The Painter, Gilder, and Varnisher's Companion, which discusses the color russet in great and repeated detail. If consensus disagrees with my recommendation, so be it. Thank you.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  09:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read that link, and I see a pretty detailed description of the color. However, that discussion is a bit over-detailed, not too encyclopedic.  I'm just suggesting that WP have a uniform treatment of color articles:  Start of with a subsection in the various Variations of .. articles (there are about six such articles, including Brown) and if/when the day comes that a particular minor color gets a huge section in one of those List articles, then split it off via WP:Splitting article.  Russet may or may not be notable.  I'm proposing a merge, so the material is kept in the encyclopedia and not lost (if a delete happens). --Noleander (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't require that our sources comply with Wikipedia's standards for encyclopedic content and the proper balance of detail. That's a goal for those of us who write and edit articles.  I've never heard of deprecating a source because it is "over-detailed".  I cite sources all the time that have far more detail on a topic than is appropriate for an encyclopedia article.  The detail of the source I mentioned simply goes toward establishing the notability of the concept of russet as a color name.  I haven't given deep thought to the hierarchy of color articles on Wikipedia, but I think that separate articles are justified for color names that have widespread, recognized usage and have been discussed in detail in several reliable sources.  Chartreuse (color) is another example, off the top of my head.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Russet is an old-school classic. Are there really people writing encyclopedia articles about Crayola colors?!?!? Carrite (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * keep&mdash;i've stayed out of the great color article deletion wars because i couldn't think of any better reason to keep them than that i liked all of them, and the templates too. but this one actually satisfies the gng in my opinion.  along with the various disciplines and subject areas, mentioned above, where russet is discussed as a thing in itself in reliable sources, there's also tanning, e.g. this, and this, and bunches of other discussions of how to get russet tones in leather, what the different kinds of russet tones are, how russet contrasts with other kinds of brown, and so forth. is there some reason why people wouldn't be writing encyclopedia articles about Crayola colors?! &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Brown as suggested. While notable, it's not something that needs its own article. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 26 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.