Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chipmunk tan

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. Wizardman 03:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunk tan[edit]

Contested prod about a colour. I can't see how this article can possibly be notable. Found very few sources, and the vast majority of the sources are about products with the colour, and not about the colour itself. Are there notability guidelines for... colours? Samuel Tan 12:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator beat me to this. Largely fails WP:NOR. Non-notable and obscure at best. The original Chipmunktan article before cleanup was apparently written as a joke with just enough referencing added to avoid WP:HOAX. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information in the article about the origin of the color needs to be cited, but the article should not be deleted. It is a commonly used color name - a google search yields 217000 hits, so the refs are out there. The article should also be written in a more encyclopedic style. Amazinglarry (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My Google search on "chipmunk tan" comes up with about 1,020 hits. The overwhelming majority of those hits are for the same brand of boys' cargo pants plus a hit for men's cargo pants. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 1070 google hits on the phrase "chipmunk tan". Non-notable. TrulyBlue (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely original research or an anachronistic neologism. The 1970s were indeed the decade of tan/brown/gold/green (article) and there were thousands of named colors in that range that were sold in various forms.

None of them appear to have had this name judging by sources (maybe that Taubmans paint). --Dhartung | Talk 01:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While phrases like "slightly nauseating hue," "quickly gained popularity with certain office-worker subcultures," "invalid name for a color" and "not invented by a marketing department" are usually calls for editing rather than deletion, the article presently contains no encyclopedic information. This Google search gives me 63 results, which seem to describe a pair of pants. There are others, such as draperies, but really, there's not much on this color. Makers (and marketing departments) routinely invent new color names, and they come and go. Let's let this one go. Fg2 (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2008 (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.