Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanadu (colour) (2nd nomination)


 * 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) 01:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Xanadu (colour)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable name for a shade of greenish-grey. bobrayner (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Not only no sources to establish wp:notability, doesn't even have sources to establish that this isn't just in the mind of a paint company. North8000 (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)etion sorting/Visual arts|list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions]].  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:34, 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/Pink-orange
 * Articles for deletion/Tuscan red
 * Articles for deletion/Regalia (color)
 * Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Killing me, dude. I'm induced to help crush one crayon, and now you're encouraging me to help snap through the entire crayola box. Has the guy produced any general argument in favor? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – the article is a bunch of original research connecting sources about plants and paints and colors and Chinese cities. There are no such connections in the sources.  Notability is nowhere in sight. Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. The sources cited in the article are (1) a link to a colour conversion tool, which converts colour information from one format to another (e.g. from Red/Green/Blue to Cyan/Magenta/Yellow/Black) but does not mention "Xanadu", nor any other individual colour, (2) a link to a web page about a cultivated variety of Philodendron known as "Xanadu", making no mention of any use of the word to refer to a colour, (3) a web page on the site of a paint company, giving contact information for that company, but not mentioning "Xanadu", nor any other colour, (4) a link to a list of colours, including "Xanadu", not looking to me like a very reliable source, (5) a dead link to a removed page which, to judge from the comment in the Wikipedia article, was another list. So at best we might have had appearances of the word in two lists, which may or may not have both been reliable sources. Not a trace anywhere of substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sign of notability independent of the paint company. The article also makes unsourced assertions about why the colour is called "Xanadu". Loves  Macs  (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This color was very recently made up (10 years ago) by some paint company. I agree with JamesBWatson's analysis of the sources completely. It's just not notable so let's get rid of it.--Slon02 (talk) 17:39, 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.