Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subtractive color space

Subtractive color space

Subtractive color space was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.

The information is simply incorrect. Where's the wiki tag for that? No potential to become encyclopedic

Subtractive color space

Subtractive color is not a color space, it is a system that describes how pigments and dyes, etc. mix togther. The title is Subtractive color. I kept trying to redirect it. But I have a foe.

And the article is not correct either. Because Subtractive color is not a color space, the author begins his definition with that assumption.

It can be confusing since RGB can be a color space and CMYK is a color space, but one must not dive first into color spaces, without first explaining the theory--Dkroll2 05:37, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

This is correct. Delete Ta bu shi da yu 09:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Space or no space, the article is extremely redundant with the subtractive color article. The fact that it's not a color space makes it that much worse. Probably can delete but barring that it's a definite redirect. DreamGuy 09:49, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
merge with subtractive color then delete. In order for the poll to be legitimate, after 7 days voters' participation in the poll should exceed 1.28% of the active voters population. The decision of that poll (assuming that it is a legitimate one) should be valid for ever. The decision method that should be used in order to extract the result from the poll should be the best rated poll option method. --- Iasson 11:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete --Pjacobi 14:03, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
Delete I don't think anything can be salvaged. Rje 14:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete.Mikkalai 04:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So what is the case for deletion? Keep. Mark Richards 21:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's nice, but do you have a reason as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy? You know, the thing you're supposed to read before nominating anything to this page - David Gerard 23:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Information that is wrong (in a non controversial way) is inherently nonnotable, that's a solid reason per the deletion policy. Or are you suggesting that articles with titles that are just plain wrong need to stay? DreamGuy 00:10, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Merge with subtractive color. Doesn't look like there is any new content to merge, though. Then redirect or delete. If nothing else, "subtractive color" is the more common term. --MarkSweep 00:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
According to your user page, you're knowledgable about this sort of thing. I'll take you word on the correctness of the article and say delete. And if you have a beef with a user that negotiation isn't resolving, the next step might be Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation, I believe. hfool 01:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, if what you are saying is right, that the article is inheritly inaccurate, then ofcourse we should delete it.
User:Dkroll2, you may have had the best intentions, but you did not succeed in redirecting subtractive color space; instead you blanked it [1]. Which was reverted as usual. I see that "subtractive color $FOO" gets hits for FOO in [scheme, primaries, mixing, space] and probably other variations; all those should redirect to subtractive color. Agreed w/ User:Mark Richards and User:David Gerard: no case for deletion. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Elf-friend 12:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think the entries should be merged, and Subtractive Color Space made a redirect. Even though "subtractive" isn't a "color space", that doesn't make the entry redundant because there are "color spaces" that are "subtractive", so the phrase "subtractive color space" has meaning (and is in use). There seems to be some attempt to maintain both entries, which would be just silly. If there are people with good information to add on this topic, they call all do better by focussing on making just one better entry. Notinasnaid 17:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) On reflection, I am saying do not delete; deletion is for subjects that should not be there and have no alternative. It can be turned into a redirect without the formality of a deletion. Notinasnaid 17:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not only is it an invalid concept, but it's just a confused rehash of information from subtractive color. It appears that no articles link here, either. neckro 08:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.