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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zinnwaldite (color)[edit]

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

Article has not had any valid sources. I've tried to research this and have had no luck verifying anything in it. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanadu (colour) PaleAqua (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – appears to be a joke, as I too haven't found any hint of a basis for it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per nom. --Kleinzach 07:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is important to leave this article in because people often mistake this color for beige because of that A.T.& T. telephone so people should be able to see the color Zinnwaldite so they can know that it is really different from Beige. Keraunos (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After about a 1/2 hour of searching, I still cannot verify any claims that 'Zinnwaldite' has been used in any documents to describe a particular color. LK (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article is deleted, the corresponding section in the article beige should be deleted too. LK (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, mention will need to be removed from all the mainspace articles listed here. (In some cases, this will be effected by removing it from ((Template:Shades of brown)).) Deor (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The claim in the article's second sentence is clearly false and depends on a (deliberate?) misreading of entries in adjacent cells of a table that happens to be unformatted in the linked version of the cited source. There's no evidence that this has ever been used as a color term. Deor (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'g3 Strong delete Blatant misinformation, misrepresents the sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it needs to be used as a color with some level of frequency (you know, like silver/silver_(color) and gold/gold_(color)). Otherwise it's just the name of a substance for now. Jlg4104 (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - all evidence is that this is an odd hoax; no such color. Tim Ross (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence found that this is a color name in common usage. (I work with color professionally, and I've seen some doozies.) But I am concerned that PaleAqua is nominating colors for deletion... is s/he trying to eliminate competition? ;-)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Heh. I've personally stated in the past that I do not in general consider 'pale' prefixed colors notable even though that would include my user name. See this diff for example. :) PaleAqua (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2009 (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.