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. Rlendog (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flavescent[edit]

Flavescent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This sub-stub is a Dictionary definition. It's already in Wiktionary; we don't need to mirror wiktionary here. bobrayner (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Dicdef of a Latinate adjective that has no potential as an encyclopedic topic. Deor (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any color that has been in use since 1666 should be kept in Wikipedia. This color is widely used in ornithology. Keraunos (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flavescent is an adjective, not the name of a color. Saying that flavescent is a color is like saying that sad is an emotion. Deor (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keraunos, did you actually read the article before commenting? What it says is that "flavous" was used in 1666, not "flavescent". In any case, there are many thousnads of English words that have been in use since the middle ages or even earlier, let alone the 17th century. We don't have articles on concepts just because words relating to them have been around for centuries: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See also:

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenic (color)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceberg (color)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mantis (color)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar bear (color)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timberwolf (color)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denim (color)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sangria (color)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceil
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persimmon (color)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheat (color)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beaver (color)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink-orange
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanadu (colour) (2nd nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuscan red
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regalia (color)

  Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – flavescent is an adjective for yellowish or turning yellow. But it's not a color. Not a notable topic. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (1) No evidence of notability. (2) Little more than a dictionary definition, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (Note: The primary meaning is "turning yellow". There are a few cases of its use to mean "yellowish", but it is not really the name of a colour.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, but rename to Flavous which is an actual English color name. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wouldn't that still be a dictionary definition? bobrayner (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - How would it be different than an article like Fulvous? It simply needs a little expansion in regard to animal coloration. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fulvous should be deleted as well, since it is basically a dab page consisting entirely of partial title matches and non–title matches. Deor (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fulvous is really otherstuff, but personally I feel that Fulvous is a dab masquerading as a colour article, and it may be better to just convert it into a genuine dab (ie. remove the preamble and photos, keep the list). Though I wouldn't object if somebody else felt it was worth AfDing. bobrayner (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to extremely strong keep per WP:AWW. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be grateful if you could cite an actual policy rather than a vague group of editors who want to keep some articles but not others. bobrayner (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't really care if some ancient Greek used an adjective thousands of years ago, much less if some 17th century Englishman did. That doesn't make the word notable. There is no significant coverage of this word, and therefore it fails our notability requirements.--Slon02 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DICDEF. The term is widely used in naming birds, so it is a real and notable word, not a manufacturer's invention like most of the items in this AfD series. But not all real and notable words need to be defined here. I assume this entry already exists at Wiktionary; if not, move it there. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 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.