Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheat (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. v/r - TP 00:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wheat (color)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

7-word dictionary definition; "Wheat is a color that resembles wheat". Not notable. bobrayner (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there is virtue in having all the colors from a standard color chart, even if some individual colors are not so notable. I don't think there is an explicit policy based argument for this, so I will have to fall back to Wikipedia is not Paper and Ignore All Rules. Francis Bond (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I think it's a bit far fetched to have an article on every shade and every hue of every colour. I see very little potential for developing of this stub, or others like it, into something encyclopaedic. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 13:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Wheat is one of the X11 colors and is therefore widely used by web site designers. It is important that all X11 colors be in Wikipedia.  Besides, this color has been in use since 1711.  Therefore the color wheat is notable enough that it should stay in Wikipedia.  Keraunos (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there has been some confusion. I'm sure that it's important for X11 documentation to include all X11 labels for colours, but that's not wikipedia. At question here is the notability. Can you provide any sources which discuss wheat - the colour - in depth? That's what wikipedia's rules require. No doubt the rules for X11 documents are different. Looking at it from another angle, you yourself pointed to an article listing all the X11 colours in one place, which rather negates the rest of that argument; even if the standalone article on wheat were notable (it isn't), it would still be redundant. bobrayner (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – a sourced X11 color. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 12 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/Beaver (color)
 * Articles for deletion/Flavescent
 * Articles for deletion/Pink-orange
 * Articles for deletion/Xanadu (colour) (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Tuscan red
 * Articles for deletion/Regalia (color)
 * Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. An X11 color. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. "Wheat is a color that resembles wheat". Really? — This article is a joke! Its reference at X11 color names is more than sufficient. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As a web standard color, it can be described exactly, not just in the vague phrase above. It's a sufficiently notable use to make the color notable. Every such color should have an article.   DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I realise that this AfD is now unlikely to swing towards "delete", but I must express my continuing frustration at being unable to find the exemption for X11 colours in the GNG, despite the many keep votes which appear to be based on this. We already have a central article listing the X11 colours, making stubs like this one as redundant as they are non-notable. bobrayner (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just do a 2nd nomination later on for all of the X11 colors. You're right: the listing at X11 color names is more than enough and really all you can write about it. Just because it is a documented color doesn't mean it's worthy of an article. What's next, an article for each Pantone code? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A good idea to have an article for each pantone color. Glad you suggested it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If somebody showed how each individual pantone colour passes the GNG, I would support that 100%. However, here we're discussing Wheat (color), which fails the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. We're not discussing whether or not X11 colors as a whole are notable- we're discussing whether this particular X11 color is notable. If someone wants information on it, I proudly present the X11 article itself. It happens to already provide almost all of the information in this article already. This particular color is not notable.--Slon02 (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per P199 and Slon02. The X11 colors are all listed in their own Wikipedia article and that is sufficient coverage. There is no evidence that the color "wheat" has any notability or significant usage outside of that context. --MelanieN (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.