Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spot Color vs. Process Color

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 of the debate was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spot Color vs. Process Color[edit]

Original research and not an encyclopedic topic. Metros232 02:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have articles on both Spot color and Process color. Wikipedia isn't for howtos. Dr Zak 03:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not very good now, and may have some original research, but ther eis no real reason this is not an encyclopedic topic. Bryce 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like advice, not encyclopedia entry; original research unsourced. --JChap 03:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it is both a violation of WP:OR and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see any original research or indiscriminate collection of information. Could you point out which things you'd place in that category? Fg2 07:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a valid topic but, if someone wants to write a real article, we're losing nothing in starting from scratch. definitely WP:OR at the moment - Peripitus 03:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic, unsourced, original research, adds nothing to already existing articles on Spot color and Process color. A badly drafted, chatty "how-to" that violates WP "No tutorials or how-to's" policy. Ande B 05:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced OR. We shouldn't ever have this type of article, unless someone writes a book or journal article specifically to compare these two things. Kevin 10:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Bryce Crazynas 12:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to/advice site. --FuriousFreddy 14:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, unencyclopedic, unsourced. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did you look at it? I added external links at 13:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC). My vote is keep because I improved it a bit (made it a bit less conversational, added some external links, etc.) I also added links to it from other articles on the subject so that someone who is familiar with the subject might improve it. Armedblowfish 16:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, not unencyclopedic and can develop. We need to give it some time. --Andy123 ^candy? 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is not an encyclopedic subject, but the information therein could be rescued and moved to appropriate articles. HighInBC 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reyk _YO! 20:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Guinnog 23:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nobody who voted "delete" has pointed out any statement in the article that constitutes original research; the article is presently free of original research. Some people pointed out lack of citations; this has now been taken care of. What we have now is an article on an encyclopedic subject, containing references, and free of original research. Keep. Fg2 00:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A page comparing two things that already have their own pages is unnecessary. Zaxem 01:03, 6 June 2006 (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.