Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceil

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. v/r - T P 02:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceil[edit]

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

This is just a dictionary definition of a non-notable shade of blue. bobrayner (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unsourced, non-notable one-line article. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant use of this term, let alone substantial coverage in reliable sources. Also, the article is no more than a dictionary definition, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article provides no more information that can't be found in List of Crayola crayon colors. Also no indication of notability of this crayon color used by one particular company. I can't imagine this article being expanded from a one-line dictionary definition into a full article.--Slon02 (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Unlike most of the nominated colors, ceil is not a manufacturer's invention; it is a commonly used generic term for a color, including for a fabric popular in scrub suits[1][2][3] and for paints.[4] The article needs expansion but it should be kept. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm changing my opinion to Delete per WP:DICDEF. This is a real and notable word, but not all words need Wikipedia articles. The word should have an entry at Wiktionary, but not here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 17 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.