Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisteria (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   redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wisteria (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 poorly-sourced (only source is a dictionary) stub about a non-notable color. It fails WP:GNG and I'd say that it is a WP:DICDEF. Slon02 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Slon02 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Many of these "color" articles are just dictionary definitions as the nominator says. The same hue and value in a color schema such as Munsell may have been called a number of different names by sellers of paint, pigment, fabric or crayons. Where is significant coverage of "wisteria" as a color? Edison (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no indication this particular hue is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into Variations of purple. It is an actual color (both in 1892 and today per Crayola) unlike some of the others in recent AfDs. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it an actual color because somebody working for Crayola was paid to think of a name for a new color that isn't more important than the countless other shades of purple that have "names", or is it an actual color because it was used by an unknown someone for an unknown reason at unknown notability over a century ago?--Slon02 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Most flowers have colors named after them. These colors named after flowers are in wide use. Keraunos (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that this particular color named after a flower is in wide use? I'm not disputing that other colors named after flowers are.--Slon02 (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge - It's already in the article on the color Lavender (color) at Lavender (color). Therefore, there is no need for a separate article.  Keraunos (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter  (talk)  20:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Lavender (color) per Keraunos. There's nothing in this article that isn't already there. Deor (talk) 14:01, 27 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.