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.
Michig (
talk) 06:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. If a reliable source existed for such a list then that would make the article unnecessary as we could just refer to that. Also, listcruft would still apply. The bigger problem is that this isn't even referenced to such an external source. The article is completely unverifiable. It could be almost completely made up for all we know. The Hex values are either made up or sampled out of the website in an act of
original research. Some of the other Crayola colour articles are referenced, although I'm not sure how reliable their sources are either. This isn't referenced at all. It has been tagged as unreferenced since 2015. I see no hope for it. --
DanielRigal (
talk) 22:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Crayola is a brand and the colours are products so this is essentially breaches
WP:NOTCATALOGUE.
Ajf773 (
talk) 10:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Not relevant to this discussion, as this article is not a description of product availability or pricing, as one would find in a sales catalogue, which is what the policy in question is about.
P Aculeius (
talk) 12:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - List cruft.
Carrite (
talk) 15:59, 29 July 2018 (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.
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.
Michig (
talk) 06:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. If a reliable source existed for such a list then that would make the article unnecessary as we could just refer to that. Also, listcruft would still apply. The bigger problem is that this isn't even referenced to such an external source. The article is completely unverifiable. It could be almost completely made up for all we know. The Hex values are either made up or sampled out of the website in an act of
original research. Some of the other Crayola colour articles are referenced, although I'm not sure how reliable their sources are either. This isn't referenced at all. It has been tagged as unreferenced since 2015. I see no hope for it. --
DanielRigal (
talk) 22:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Crayola is a brand and the colours are products so this is essentially breaches
WP:NOTCATALOGUE.
Ajf773 (
talk) 10:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Not relevant to this discussion, as this article is not a description of product availability or pricing, as one would find in a sales catalogue, which is what the policy in question is about.
P Aculeius (
talk) 12:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - List cruft.
Carrite (
talk) 15:59, 29 July 2018 (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.