Deletion of List of Crayola crayon colors (2nd nomination)

Comment: This article seems to satisfy the requirements for a list-based article according to : the topic ''as a group'' is notable; there have been a number of controversies over the years specifically over the color naming in the Crayola crayon products, e.g., http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19910917&id=0GgwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gDUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4692,3169971, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-01-13/features/1993013028_1_crayola-crayon-new-crayons-binney-smith, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-emskin0520120209161650,0,4716104.photo, and http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/arizonaliving/articles/2008/12/16/20081216crayons1216.html. There is a rather extensive history of the Crayola colors at the secondary source http://www.crayoncollecting.com/ccolor30.htm The Definitive History of the Colors of Crayola, . As a consequence, individual members of the lists may not need to be sourced, nor do they need to be notable. This sort of reasoning is why articles such as List of colors: A-M can continue to exist, despite many more colors, yet worse sourcing. For the purposes of verification of the color names and when these colors appeared, it is fine to use a primary source such as the web page http://www2.crayola.com/colorcensus/history/chronology.cfm Crayola Crayon Chronology. Such information is illustrated (beautifully) at secondary sources such as http://www.datapointed.net/2010/10/crayola-color-chart-rainbow-style/ The History Of Crayola Crayons, Charted. Other secondary sources found with a quick search are http://www.colorschemer.com/blog/2008/03/21/120-crayons-on-the-web/ 120 Crayons on the Web or the crayola color schemes at http://www.colorschemer.com/ colorschemer.com. So the color names are verifiable. The color representations are problematic and approximate, but ''all'' represented colors on Wikipedia are approximate because of dependence on the monitor or print medium. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Color that discusses these issues. Their answer is to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Color/Normalized Color Coordinates|normalized color coordinates We may wish to follow their lead in this case. A notable topic and surmountable article problems, per , lead me to recommend keeping the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:SURMOUNTABLE)

Comment: Seems to meet , and has third-party sources that do appear to show notability for the subject.  Is it the most wonderfully well-written and well-sources list ever?  No, but it does seem to be notable enough to warrant keeping the article, as the list subjects are relevant enough to one another as demonstrated by the reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LSC)

Comment: Seems to meet , and although the hex codes as noted above can no longer be found, I would hate to lose this information. It is very handy, and it is something notable in American popular cultural history, as the references provided attest
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LSC)

Comment: I'd be surprised if the hex numbers are the result of anything more than someone somewhere sitting down, trying some stuff out, and saying "yeah, that looks about right," which makes it a textbook case of |original research. Other than that, the content is reasonable. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: clean - ( note I was the the nominator of the previous AfD though in hind site I was probably a bit pointy with it. ). This list itself is notable ( agree with above votes ) but the article has a lot of  issues, especially with the hex codes. These columns should be removed. There is a systemic problem with original research for color coordinates in a large number of color articles including the confusion that RGB space includes all colors. The proper way to fix this though is not to take the list articles but get it fixed on a wider scale. I tried for awhile but have mostly given up myself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: As far as lists go, it works.  It's limited in scope, it's notable.  The article has problems.  There was a lot of effort a few years ago to address them.  They have not been addressed.  But, "It sucks" isn't a valid reason for deletion outside of .  Although, the hex approximation of the colors does bother me.  I would assume that the EXACT color is some sort of a trade secret, though.... not sure how that can be sourced.  But, in the spirit of , at the very least, it shouldn't be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:NUKEANDPAVE||WP:PRESERVE)