Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silkcolor Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silkcolor

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. Ty 23:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silkcolor

More neologism shenanigans. In plain black-and-white, this is just not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Silk painting has been around for thousands of years. But you decide to come up with your own name for it? Who the Hell are you? Article veers off topic and never comes back. Still...there isn't a dedicated article on silk painting, and there probably could be. -Verdatum (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless article, doesn't add to Wikipedia. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable neologism, and a coatrack for mentioning the person who supposedly came up with the word. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 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.