Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color of the bikeshed
There seems to be a clear preference above for deletion. The arguments are persuasive; but let me state what I think would be my preferred outcome, based on how WikiPedia actually gets used. 1. Create a section under Parkinson called "bicycle shed example" containing relevant sourced content. 2. Create redirects for "bicycle shed", "bike shed", "bikeshed", and "color of the bikeshed" to this section. This is on the grounds that a) Parkinson's bicycle shed example seems to be of (modest) notability; b) It is not unusual for an article about an author to mention salient topics based primarily on that author's writing; c) There are sufficient references to the example (both correct and misread) to expect that people will search WikiPedia for this information; d) Though arguably borderline, this doesn't strike me as an egregious neologism, but is more along the lines of other http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Adages adages (which we should comb for notability); and e) By referring to it under "bicycle shed" rather than "color of the bikeshed," the issue of neologism is removed. I might cite  as an argument for retaining an article that some of us, at least, were glad to find. Finally, one might add that this discussion seems to be an excellent example of the "bicycle shed" principle
— User:Spinality, 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:IGNORE (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules)