- List of Crayola colored pencil colors (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
It's surprising that while the crayon list was kept, this list was deleted, probably because relatively few people voted in this list. Georgia guy (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What in particular do you think was wrong with the close? It looks pretty straight forward to me. If I was closing this, I'd note that User:P Aculeius was actually arguing to keep, but that's not enough. I'd scratch my head over User:Anna Frodesiak's comments because I can't actually tell if she's arguing to keep, or delete, or neither. I might have possibly relisted this with a note to Anna to clarify her intentions, but possibly I wouldn't have bothered. Note, I closed a couple of the other Crayola AfDs, but I didn't look at this one. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply the fact that although the crayon article (with many votes, regardless of direction) was kept but that this article was deleted. Georgia guy (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid reason to start a deletion review. Please read WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional information about this deletion review is that I would like comments primarily from voters who voted to keep the crayon list. I especially want people to be aware that that list survived Afd but this one didn't, with one of the main differences between the 2 Afds is that this one had few votes. Georgia guy (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry that I didn't have the energy to contest this, as it looked like a valid article (less certain about "paints"), but I've only really been involved with the crayon articles, which I worked extensively to reform from earlier versions. I think this could be reconstituted eventually if it can be properly sourced, and I think that should be easy enough to do. Although in theory the colors should be shared with the crayons, so it may not be that important for every product to have its own page. Crayola crayons are, as one editor pointed out, "iconic", while the colored pencils are less so. However, if the editors trying to remove most of the color data from the crayon articles succeed in their argument for excluding it, then there won't be much point in recreating this page either, since it'll be difficult to document the colors if the best sources for them are excluded. You might want to weigh in on that debate, if you hope to reconstitute this article at some point. P Aculeius (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, RoySmith. I just posted at the AfDs to connect them together since the nominator didn't use WP:MULTIAFD. That was all. I have no opinion on the articles themselves. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse It looks like one user decided to go after a bunch of Crayola pages simultaneously without doing the WP:MULTIAFD, but I don't see any possible remedy for this particular article - it's not as if the articles were similar enough that the multi was excluded improperly, and there was only one keep vote. I don't agree with all of the deletion rationales, specifically the apparent sales catalogue argument, but there's no consensus/effort whatsoever to keep this page. SportingFlyer talk 06:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse this perfectly straightforward close. AfD is not a vote and there is no minimum number of participants needed to form a consensus. – Joe (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, entirely correct closure. WP:LC applied. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Seems quite reasonable. Different discussions, different pages, different outcomes. The close is fine, and I don't see any evidence to suggest it should be overturned. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
