Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color of the bikeshed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Mangojuicetalk 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Color of the bikeshed[edit]

Color of the bikeshed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An utterly nonnotable catch phrase. Only 45 unique google hits for "color of the bikeshed" plus 29 unique google hits for "coloUr of the bikeshed". The text is one big original research plus some tentative refs to hacker lore sources. `'Míkka>t 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence that this neologism is notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mere fact that it is discussed by Parkinson would seem to establish notability. I don't understand why deletion is even an issue. Among technocrats this is a familiar phrase. Sources could be better but the mere fact of inadequate sources does not make something a neologism. Spinality (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Parkinson quote can be found by searching for "bicycle," cf. p. 29. Thus in this case, the WP article "colo[u]r of the bikeshed" is not referring to a phrase but a concept. Google searches for that particular phrase all seem to vector to that particular FreeBSD document, but searches for "bikeshed painting" or "bicycle shed" will find different and larger result sets. Clearly, from the number of blog references etc., the FreeBSD piece has been widely-read and has been significant in drawing attention to this topic. However just because something is widely referenced in blogs and achieves somewhat of a meme status does not diminish its importance. There are many aphorisms by the likes of Ruskin, La Rochefoulcauld, and Churchill that are difficult to track down but nevertheless play an important role in our collective experience. I have heard bicycle shed comments for years, and was thus surprised that anybody might think it was a recent invention. Spinality (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be equally happy if the article were made a redirect to a section on the Parkinson article (obviously after such a section were created). Spinality (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument below is not whether lots of people know the term; it's whether we can document that the term is widely known. (Laudak's argument below adds a higher but not-unreasonable threshold.) The difference between stuff discussed in blogs and seminal "aphorisms by the likes of Ruskin, La Rochefoulcauld, and Churchill" is professionally published evidence. Any of the latter, if they truly "play an important role in our collective experience", will be widely published, even if their specific origin is murky. To quote Wikipedia:Verifiability, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in the original). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—As I was doing my research on this one Spinality stole my thunder. It seems that this term has an established place in technology (especially software) development and project management. The problem for me is more references than notability. While searching I found the term mentioned (though only in a footnote) in this paper which apparently was submitted to the GCC developer's conference in 2003. Since we recognize conference papers as a legitimate source, I think this article needs to stay. Livitup (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless multiple reliable sources are cited to demonstrate that this is not a neologism. The spelling of the subject is indicative of the true reason the article exists — because it caught someone's eye on the U.S.-leaning FreeBSD development mailing list, not because it is found in British author Parkinson's writings (in which it is apparently spelled colour of the bike shed; I can't be sure because no version of Parkinson's Law scanned by Google Book Search (GBS) seems to include this expression, which may be because they've not been fully or properly converted to searchable text). Spinality is technically correct that the current lack of reliable sources is not non-notability proof. Nevertheless, one of the major reasons for sources is to show that something is notable. Furthermore, just because Parkinson may be considerable notable doesn't automatically make any specific thing he said worthy of a Wikipedia article. Here's the only GBS-scanned book I found that includes this expression in any of its four most obvious forms (i.e., color/colour, bikeshed/bike shed):
    • Reed, Alec (2001). Innovation in Human Resource Management: Tooling Up for the Talent. Simon Caulkin ("Foreward"). CIPD Publishing. pp. page viii. ISBN 0852929285.
    See comment above; try searching Parkinson's Law for 'bicycle.' Spinality (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A reference in a mailing list and another in a conference paper add almost nothing to the argument that this expression is in wide use. Let's dig up some solid evidence so we don't have to argue the colo[u]r of this bikeshed while building Wikipedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. I see now that there are many more relevant references for "bicycle shed" in Google Book Search, and some of them imply that a better name for the article would be "Parkinson's Law of Triviality", with various forms of "colo[u]r of the bike/bicycle shed" being redirected to it. But I haven't the time to analyze the data to see how solid these are. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The term has been around for years. No doubt sources can be found. Look in idiom and proverb dictionaries. The Transhumanist 19:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a WP:NEOLOGISM to me. Most of the article is currently original research and i doubt the article could get past being a stub. --neon white talk 19:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. there are zillions of witticisms uttered by smart people and circulated among closed professional societies. And we could have flooded wikipedia with articles about these. The major threshold is reasonable notability; the latter is identified by some reputable ref which critically discusses the term, not simply uses it. Laudak (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the article is sourced to show the term has been in use for over 50 years, WP:NEOLOGISM doesn't apply. This should be kept as an obviously notable phrase due to regular use, and a well sourced origin having been provided. Jim Miller (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there are no sources to show that only examples of it being used. --neon white talk 14:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know about WP:OR, but WP:SYNTHESIS seems to be at work here. One source, no matter how old is almost never enough to establish notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have end up in this article by searching in the wikipedia for the meaning of the concept. Although it is a weak point, the arguments given by Spinality apply very much to my case. In any case, as the arguments for and against the article are quite reasonable, I would give the article the benefit of the doubt. Mimosinnet (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This term is used by Caulkin, Simon (2001) Foreword, In Alec Reed Innovation in Human Resource Management. Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development (ISBN-10: 0852929285). Mimosinnet (talk 11:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to guidelines neologisms cannot be considered notable by a few examples of it's use. This is original research. To quote "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." --neon white talk 14:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may be a relatively common misreading of the Parkinson argument, but that's all it is - a misreading of the Parkinson argument. The article is based around it having been sent out as an email to a mailing list this one time, which isn't notable. Redirect to Parkinson. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Changing to keep based on recasting, with an assumed move to a more appropriate title. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable neologism. No evidence this phrase has garnered use by multiple, reliable, published sources. — Satori Son 16:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seems to be a clear preference above for deletion. The arguments are persuasive; but let me state what I think would be my preferred outcome, based on how WikiPedia actually gets used. 1. Create a section under Parkinson called "bicycle shed example" containing relevant sourced content. 2. Create redirects for "bicycle shed", "bike shed", "bikeshed", and "color of the bikeshed" to this section. This is on the grounds that a) Parkinson's bicycle shed example seems to be of (modest) notability; b) It is not unusual for an article about an author to mention salient topics based primarily on that author's writing; c) There are sufficient references to the example (both correct and misread) to expect that people will search WikiPedia for this information; d) Though arguably borderline, this doesn't strike me as an egregious neologism, but is more along the lines of other adages (which we should comb for notability); and e) By referring to it under "bicycle shed" rather than "color of the bikeshed," the issue of neologism is removed. I might cite WP:IGNORE as an argument for retaining an article that some of us, at least, were glad to find. Finally, one might add that this discussion seems to be an excellent example of the "bicycle shed" principle. Spinality (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick look through Google Books shows at least three published titles that use the phrase in relation to project management, and not only in software; Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project, Perl Template Toolkit, and Innovation in Human Resource Management: Tooling Up for the Talent Wars. This isn't just a meme that appeared last month on some message board; it's been around since the 1950s and appears in serious books. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing this out. I have added numerous references to the article, a pointless task :P which I believe lays to rest the idea that the bicycle shed example is some lost bit of trivia. Since its association with the phrase "color of the bikeshed" seems to be an Internet-era recasting of the story (albeit one that is cited in what look like credible publications), I again suggest that this material probably DOES belong in WikiPedia; that it belongs under Parkinson rather than as a stand-alone article; and that several redirects are appropriate. Spinality (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As i pointed out above, neologisms are not considered notabile by citing examples of their use in primary sources. This is original research. If the term is not covered in secondary sources it lacks notablity. --neon white talk 15:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is Parkinson's "bicycle shed" example a neologism? And why aren't the numerous references to this example and the "Law of Triviality" now cited on the page, most of which are indeed secondary sources, sufficient evidence that this concept is notable? (I can see that the phrase "color of the bikeshed" per se is less well established, although it is still discussed (not simply used) in secondary sources. For that reason the main discussion probably belongs under Parkinson, Law of Triviality, etc.) But I must be missing something about the "delete" argument. Spinality (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are original research and that cant be used to assert notability. The term needs to be covered in secondary sources. --neon white talk 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. These are secondary sources. Per WP:PRIMARY:
"Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source.... Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims."
With respect to Parkinson's Law of Triviality, the primary source is Parkinson's Law, and virtually any reference to and discussion of that concept is thus a secondary source. Spinality (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parkinson's is a source of the neologism. Parkinson's is just a case of comparison, treated literally, not as a fixed expression. `'Míkka>t 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm still not understanding. I thought the real issue here was whether Parkinson's example, which has been referred to as "Law of Triviality," "bikeshed effect," "color of the bikeshed," "bicycle shed example," etc., is notable. I realize that the current article title is "color of the bikeshed," and there are arguments for and against viewing this either as a simple descriptive phrase, as a non-notable neologism, or as a notable one. One might split hairs about how best to refer to many laws and adages. But including some description of Parkinson's Law of Triviality would seem to be expected, and it seems as notable as most of the other adages and eponymous principles described elsewhere in WikiPedia. Presumably the goal is to avoid creating useless lists describing silly, single-source phrases, not to exclude articles that people will reasonably expect to find here. Spinality (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's already been established that this example is used in multiple secondary sources. The "neologism" argument is over and done with. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:NEO. For a neoligism to be notable there has to be evidence that it has recieved significant coverage in multiple reliable second or third party sources, merely pointing to examples of it's use in primary sources is not that and is original resaerch. The guideline makes that quite clear. Please do not claim false consensus. --neon white talk 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are not examples of use in primary sources. They are secondary sources that discuss the bicycle shed example. Moreover, the issue of the origin of the phrase "color of the bikeshed" IMO is far less important than the concept of Parkinson's Law of Triviality, which is widely discussed in these sources and elsewhere. Spinality (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what they are, they are examples of the term being used in primary sources that editors of wikipedia have found, thus it's research that has not been done before and is original. I cannot see any examples of the term/phrase being discussed in terms of its meaning and origin in reliable secondary sources. --neon white talk 15:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO restricts itself to "terms that have recently been coined." I still do not believe that this guideline is at all applicable. 1957 doesn't seem recent enough to qualify. Even using the actual wording on this article (which is a content dispute) which dates to 1999 seems be to old to fail WP:NEO. The concept is notable by its use, the wording of the title is a matter for the talk page. Jim Miller (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1957 is hundreds of years later than 99% of the english language. Regardless, neologism or not, the term does not have significant coverage in independent second party sources. No subjects are notable by merely existing. This is contrary to notability policy. A subject has to have been noticed and writen about by someone other than the wikipedia editors that created the page which is the case here and why the article is a piece of original research and the subject, not notable. --neon white talk 15:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've often mentioned (if not by name) this phenomenon and the associated Law of Triviality in conversation; so, although this is my first encounter with the Wikipedia article, I can see it being a very useful source to which I can refer others. I wouldn't object, however, if it survived as a paragraph or two in a larger collection of such verities, such as the Peter Principle (everyone tends to his/her level of incompetence) or Murphy's Law (everything that can go wrong will go wrong; everything that can't go wrong still goes wrong). Shakescene (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonnotable neologism falsely attributed to Parkinson. I personally checked while the book indeed parodically compares debates about expenses for a reactor, for bicycle shed & for refreshments, it does not mention color neither uses the Americanism, "bike". Therefore the article title is invented by someone else, although eveidently derived from Parkinson's. Whether the concept is notable is not proven by metareferenes (i.e., not merely usage citations), the article is 100% original research and invention. The apparently impessive list of references is not about the expression in question. Timurite (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Once more, for the folks in the balcony. Yes, the title of the article is wrong for various reasons. The solution is not to delete it but rename it. I added the references to the article to substantiate that the concept is notable. These are legitimate print references to Parkinson's Law of Triviality and his bicycle shed example – references, not "meta-references"; these authors discuss the concept, and are not simply uses of a catchphrase, which would be improper references. Moreover, a few of these sources refer to the Parkinson example using the description "color of the bikeshed" – due no doubt to Kamp's mischaracterization (but which nevertheless has itself been discussed in legitimate sources). In my quick review of these sources, I read them all as referring to the concept and not to the phrase; I did not include citations that simply used the phrase in a descriptive manner, i.e. as a non-notable or (perhaps a notable) neologism. Surely you will agree that Parkinson's example has been discussed widely for many years. Why shouldn't we have an article or article section about Parkinson's Law of Triviality that describes inter alia the bicycle shed example? This is precisely what many of these authors have done. And if we do, wouldn't it be appropriate to provide redirects for terms such as "bikeshed" and "bicycle shed" that are manifestly in common use? I am truly puzzled that this is generating debate. Spinality (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have mildly reworded the article so that it discusses the concept rather than the phrase. If we follow this route, and retitle it, will the foes of neologism be more comfortable? Spinality (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New to me, but apparently a widely used concept. DGG (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently no sources that document it's use so we cannot know that. --neon white talk 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep with the recent recasting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I hope the irony of this now rather large debate is not lost on most AfDers, considering the subject under discussion. :) Livitup (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only that unintentionally humorous overlay of this issue has motivated me to keep bashing away. :) This is why I try to shy away from debates about policy, meta-policy, and their bureaucratic implementation. Spinality (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's clear that it's not a neologism (because it doesn't fit the requirement of being recently coined). It's also clear that it's notable (from the multiple secondary sources). It's also clear that it isn't original research (since those many different secondary sources discuss it, not just mention it (In fact, I find it kinda hard to imagine how one could mention the term without discussing it, especially if it was non-notable as has been asserted). This covers all of the deletion reasons. However, it does probably need to be re-titled. As the bottom of WP:NEO suggests, this notable topic seems to have no accepted shorthand (the shorthand used is not recent, but does not seem to be "accepted"), so instead the title should use "a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." BurnChao (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What secondary sources? --neon white talk 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Three quotes quickly pulled from the sources listed in the current article:
  • "Poul-Henning Kamp's famous "bikeshed" post (an excerpt from which appears in Chapter 6) is an eloquent disquisition on what tends to go wrong in group discussions." Karl Fogel et al., Producing Open Source Software...', pp. 135, 261-268
  • "The difference, according to Parkinson, was that everyone had some experiences with projects of the bicycle-shed variety; in contrast to their experience with nuclear physics buildings." Grace Budrys, Planning for the nation's health...", p. 81
  • "A few decades ago, Professor Northcote Parkinson published a series of essays on the science of public and business administration.... [His] Law of Triviality [uses an example that] describes the perfunctory discussion on an item concerning an expensive...nuclear reactor and compares this with the fierce debate over the proposed new bicycle shed.... [No] self-respecting committee member would confess to not understanding the construction and economics of a bicycle shed! Few better illustrations of the workings of the various laws enunciated by Parkinson could be provided than the development of nuclear power...." Bob Burton et al., Nuclear Power, Pollution and Politics, p. ix
These are secondary sources since they cite Parkinson. The other sources I smacked into the article were similar, and were found via a brief foray in Google Books to aid in the present AfD discussion. A more thorough survey of the literature would no doubt allow greater depth and selectivity. Spinality (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it sounds like there may be some confusion here about what is a "secondary source." Although I believe WP:PRIMARY makes this quite clear, it seems as though some 'deleters' are looking for citations from historical surveys that are specifically on the topic of references to Parkinson's bicycle shed – who would write such a book? – and which BTW would probably be tertiary sources. The assessment of primary/secondary/tertiary to a source is always with respect to some subject matter – in this case, Parkinson's book, which is the primary source. If you are asserting that no book may be quoted in Wikipedia which is also a source of original research, you reduce us to quoting from encyclopaedias and textbooks. I can't recall any article I've read or written that ignores sources that contain original content – because of course few publishers would be interested in a book that says nothing new. Moreover we are not even enjoined from citing original research published in credible sources. We may not place our own original research on WikiPedia, and we may not use original research to establish notability. When we refer to a source that cites Parkinson's work, that source is manifestly not original research. Spinality (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe the deletionist argument is that just because a phrase is used in some published books, that doesn't make them secondary sources on the phrase. One example would be if we did an article about the prevalence of some slang expression and cited occurences of it in print as evidence thereof; that's not enough for an article. However, that's not the case here. We cite books that discuss the "bikeshed" analogy and how it applies to different situations in business. And that discussion and analysis makes them secondary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's my interpretation as well. A list of search engine hits for a particular phrase would obviously not make that phrase notable. Perhaps when adding the sources, I did not make it clear that they all included substantive discussion of the underlying topic. Also, there is a big difference between a discussion of a catchphrase versus a discussion of the concept it references. In this case, the choice of reference phrase is probably only significant in relation to the ways people are likely to search for the article. Spinality (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rename as "Bicycle shed (proverb)" ( I could have sworn the version I first heard was the roof on the bicycle shed. ) Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Comment That's basically what's debated in Parkinson's example: should it be aluminium, asbestos or galvanized iron? (page 69 of the 1957 edition published by John Murray, London) Shakescene (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, sources show that it has been used many times. Everyking (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, you didn't bother to check the "sources" `'Míkka>t 01:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know, I just looked at the Gentlemen and Tradesmen article ( which apparently you deleted as a reference ), which quotes Parkinson's adage as an example of what can happen in business when generalists are promoted over specialists. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I have restored the sources that refer to this CONCEPT (not PHRASE) since we are actively discussing this issue. user:mikkalai, since you obviously think that these are not proper sources, please discuss your position here rather than just removing article content. Please see the comments above (including source quotes) that explain why I at least regard these as legitimate secondary sources. What is wrong with them? Spinality (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should pick about five good sources and actually cite them, leaving the rest aside. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Basically agree, but remember that the current long list of sources was quickly placed on the page simply to address the AfD discussion. I believe that the right sequence of events would be
        1. Resolve the AfD decision; and then (assuming Keep is the decision):
        2. Create a Parkinson's Law of Triviality article as a sub-article to C Northcote Parkinson (and do the same for other Parkinson sub-topics)
        3. Clean up the new article to discuss the CONCEPT as opposed to catch phrases, including quotes cited from a good subset of sources (although I might point out that most articles simply cite sources by name and page number, and don't provide specific textual context, but I agree that this is a special situation since the sources were called into question)
        4. Replace the current article with a redirect
        As a start, I have inserted the three quotes cited above on the article page. However I have left the other sources in place, pending resolution of the AfD. Spinality (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a neologism because the article is not about the specific phrase but about the idea. The fact that the "wrong" version of the example was used for the title of the article is evidence of that! --Itub (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on points covered under all above "keeps". By the way, there may be notable topics without even a single google hit. --Bhadani (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very well known phrase and concept dating back over half a century! How ironic to see it referred to as a neologism. I agree with the comment above, however, that the author was British and the article should probably use UK spelling. Oh, and there's also the fact that it is the basis of a wikipedia essay that has been around for over 2 years: Wikipedia:Avoid Parkinson's Bicycle Shed Effect. --Athol Mullen (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed resolution[edit]

At this point, the preponderance of responses suggest keeping an improved/recasted article. To summarize:

  • Delete (7 votes): Main objection centers around the phrase "color of the bikeshed" and the sense that it is a) a neologism, b) not notable, c) not related to Parkinson's original example, d) concern that the sources cited are primary sources, and e) concern that the cited sources illustrate use of rather than discussion of the concept/phrase.
  • Keep (15 votes, including one reversed 'delete'): Parkinson's Law of Triviality and its bicycle shed example are seen as notable and well-documented; there is some agreement that the concept is more important than a particular phrase/adage, and that this should be refleced in the article.
  • Abstain (1 vote, reversed from 'delete'): Probably worn out by this endless "bike shed" discussion.

Proposed actions: a) Keep the article. b) Refocus and retitle it to address the concept rather than the phrase. c) Integrate it better with other Parkinson material. d) Clean up the sources. [And with luck e) Never need to discuss this again.] Kindly add any dissenting comments below, with explanation, please – e.g. explaining why you feel that the quoted sources are inadequate. :) Spinality (talk) 19:20, 20 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Color_of_the_bikeshed&oldid=1087636827"