Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variations of magenta Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Variations_of_magenta

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 Procedural Keep. No rationale for deletion is offered. The presence, or lack, of a category is not itself a policy-based rationale for deletion, as per our Deletion Policy. The AFD process, at present, differs from other processes (such as Templates for Discussion), in that it isn't a forum for non-specific discussion about the subject article; an AFD is very specifically a request to delete a particular article for a particular violation of our policies. There is no such request here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Variations of magenta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

There is no Category:Shades of magenta to go with this list. Georgia guy (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't see how lack of a companion category is a rationale for deletion. I also don't see why a category would be needed or useful in the absence of stand-alone articles to populate it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The Category:Shades of red category goes with the Variations of red article. Georgia guy (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if this is being considered solely on their not being a category "shades of magenta", then this debate should be around whether to add such a category (which i agree is not needed). nomination should be speedily closed, and nominator may take this discussion elswhere, or be bold and just create the category. i would note that the color categories tend to not be extra-spectral colors, and combination colors like magenta are classed in the spectral color they are most associated with.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Although I'm not convinced that the page meets the inclusion criteria, in my view, the nominator's rationale makes very little sense and has nothing to do with Wikipedia's deletion policies. If no one comes up with a better argument for deletion, I suggest a speedy keep per WP:KEEP. — Rankiri (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. I want to know what's special about magenta that makes it so that this article makes sense; it treats magenta like a basic color. Georgia guy (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article is about a notable topic and there really aren't any scope or content issues that would necessitate deletion. I don't know when the idea that WP:CLN advocates that every category should have a list and every list should have a category got started, but that really isn't a useful way of incorporating their roles. Their functions overlap, but they aren't mirror images of each other. This article is a good example of a list that doesn't need a category. ThemFromSpace 19:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Please explain which of the 4 following things Wikipedia deserves:

1. Variations of pink article
2. Category:Shades of pink
3. Variations of magenta article
4. Category:Shades of magenta Georgia guy (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2010 (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.