Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost white

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 merge to Variations of white. v/r - T P 00:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost white

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles are basically just dictionary definitions of not-notable colors. These all happen to be X11 colors, but the notability of X11 colors should not determine the notability of every individual X11 color- they should stand on their own merits. They're already all listed on the X11 colors article. We don't need to have separate articles on them, they don't have enough content to be anything than stubbish dictionary definitions, and they're not notable enough to have separate articles. Slon02 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following X11 color articles:

--Slon02 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Slon02 (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Note that other X11 colors (such as Wheat (color)) were not deleted in recent AfDs. There is no consensus that they should be deleted. Francis Bond (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous issues here. Although we might not be a paper encyclopedia, let me refer to that same policy- "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". Conveniently, the appropriate policy here is notability, which determines if topic should have its own article. You even just stated that some individual colors might not be notable! There must be significant coverage of this specific topic in detail- not a trivial mention of it as part of the X11 colors. If you can find those sources, it can pass our notability guidelines. WP:IAR isn't a tool to just override consensus and inclusion guidelines, especially in this case where the encyclopedia isn't really being improved- there's basically no different in the content between the X11 article and the color article.--Slon02 (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - No coverage about the specific individual X11 colour to establish it as notable for an independent article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - X11 colors. Ghost white and Old lace (color) could be merged into a Variations of white article as has been done for other basic colors (e.g. Variations of blue). Tomato could be merged into Variations of orange. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All X11 colors should have articles in Wikipedia because they are widely used by web site designers. All X11 colors are notable. Otherwise, another possibility as stated by VMS Mosaic is to Merge Ghost white and Old lace (color) into a newly created variations of white {off-white} article. Keraunos (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources that provide significant coverage of each individual color in such a way that it would satisfy WP:GNG?--Slon02 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Sandy brown is already included in the article on Desert sand, so in this case, you are right--there is no need for a separate article for it. Keraunos (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tomato (color) should be kept because it is a color name that has been in use since 1891. Keraunos (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does being used for a long time in any way satisfy our notability requirements?--Slon02 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - These colors should have been nominated separately so each color could be voted on separately. Keraunos (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - WP already contains several articles that are lists of colors: Variations of red, Variations of blue, Brown, etc. For minor colors like the four in this AfD, the best solution is just to put the material into those existing List articles. Some important colors that do have lots of sources do have their own dedicated articles, but minor colors do not. --Noleander (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I merged Sandy Brown into Brown article.
I merged Tomato (color) into Variations of orange
I merged Old lace (color) into Shades of white.
I merged Ghost white into Shades of white.

So, if the consensus is merge/delete, the deletion can happen now, and no material will be lost from the encyclopedia. The closing admin should replace the articles with REDIRECTS to the indicated articles. --Noleander (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.