Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uc davis blue

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 to Navy blue. The Keep rationales do not appear to address notability concerns. I have redirected to Navy blue but if there is a better target then that is an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uc davis blue

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

NB Article has now been moved to correct capitalisation at UC Davis Blue PamD 13:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a color that is used only by one university. It should be redirected to "Navy blue". Vanjagenije (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wouldn't even bother redirecting to navy blue. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add an entry to List_of_colors:_N–Z#U, where there are several other colours named for Universities. Then link that to an appropriate new section of UC Davis article as for University_of_Arizona#School_colors. PamD 13:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if anything survives it should be moved to "UC Davis Blue",with caps. Or perhaps "UC Davis blue"? PamD 13:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But note the precedent of Tufts Blue, and generally variable treatment of colour names! PamD 13:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: now that I've moved it to proper capitalisation it turns blue the last remaining redlink in the template {{Shades of blue}} (spotted while looking at the Tufts Blue article). PamD 13:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Pantone colour notability is clear. We must be consistent. --AJHingston (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @AJHingston:. I'm not familiar with colour notability, could you explain why this one is notable? Samwalton9 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about specific notability rules on colours. But as PamD says, we do have articles on other shades of blue and she points to Tufts Blue in particular. Pantone uses the name, it has a history, and it is a reasonable look-up if only for that reason. Redirection to Navy blue (actually a merge proposal in practice) does not seem very satisfactory, if only because that article is losing focus (Persian indigo does not seem to belong there for example). Delete this one and where to stop? --AJHingston (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the argument being made other than one of Other Stuff Exists and All or Nothing. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD necessarily relies heavily on precedent. Otherwise WP coverage would be even more random and arbitrary than it is now. An argument for deleting this article seems to be an argument for getting rid of such articles as a class or formulating new notability guidelines for them. I cannot see how WP:GNG could work here. --AJHingston (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm just not sure why this colour needs its own article and couldn't be part of the University of California article. Surely the notability criteria applies to every article on Wikipedia? Samwalton9 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some projects or groups of articles have different standards by precedent. For example, there are probably a 1000 or more mineral articles (some being pretty obscure minerals), of which only a few have enough proper refs showing notibility, but all of the minerals exist with clearly defined characteristics in academic/research literature. Yes, the Color Project is a bit of a mess because we often can't even agree to disagree about what it is we are even discussing. Even after extensive discussion, we never even came to agreement on the green shade to display on Green. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge leaving redirect - Color articles which actually have provable defined color coordinates are normally not deleted, but it is fine to merge the contents into an appropriate color article (e.g. Navy blue). Check the Blue template now at the bottom of the article where some school colors have separate articles (e.g. Tufts blue) while some are in list style articles (e.g. Brandeis blue). VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find the arguments here based upon OSE and as such the article should be deleted. What you have here is an article with no reliable sources to verify anything that is said in the article. Surely if you want to save this article we can add something to establish notability and to verify the content. With regards to the other items that have been raised, I would say that everything must meet a minimum standard. Until an exception is carved out in policy for colors I would delete. JodyB_talk 12:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JodyB, no evidence at all this meets WP:GNG and the other stuff exists argument is moot Secret ^account 18:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is in itself trivial. The exact info on the color could be added to University of California Davis. Do other campuses of the UC use the same color? If there was some story or controversy about the use of the color by Davis then maybe, but the one mere fact that a college uses a certain color is not worthy of an article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Color project which covers this article, the info should be merged into the appropriate color list article, instead of into a school article where it should instead be referenced by a wikilink. As a member of a color list, it does not need to be GNG in and of itself per WP:CSC, etc. FWIW, the Color project does manage at random intervals to consolidate articles like these into lists, so it tends to be unhelpful if they get deleted first (for example UC Davis Gold which should have been merged into Gold (color)). VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that merge. I also think the details of the colors could be mentioned in the school article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to UC Davis, and perhaps create "UC Davis Gold" as a Redirect as well. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with redirecting, but WP:WPCOL would prefer these types of redirects go to the most relevant color article, in this case Navy blue. Doing other wise prevents the project from consolidating color article/stubs/redirects. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not able to locate any independent source that discusses this colour in detail. Yes, it's in Pantone, but I'd argue that mere inclusion in that colour list is not sufficient for notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The color is used not just by Davis, but by anyone writing about that university or things connected with it. There are other university colors, and this should be treated similarly. Merging it into the university seems singularly unhelpful. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 29 December 2013 (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.