Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chromagraphy

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. ✗plicit 14:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chromagraphy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable, indeed, extremely obscure subject. PepperBeast (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might be obscure but it is interesting. --Bduke (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article appears to be a translation of a deleted article from French wikipedia: See https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Chromagraphie/Admissibilit%C3%A9

Vexations (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INTERESTING is not a sufficient reason to argue keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only source cited is an 1839 book and that's not enough to sustain an article. Otherwise it only seems to exist as a typo for Chromatography. Hut 8.5 18:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could perhaps be merged into a subsection in an arts or handicrafts article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple reasons:
1. The article has no secondary sources to establish notability.
2. The 1 primary source was apparently self-published. (Over a century ago.)
3. The text is largely incomprehensible nonsense; if it was translated, it was translated badly. (eg. "The general principle is to simplify the complete chain leading from work to its reproduction on another support, as the carpet or the tissue." - ???) Meaningless gibberish isn't interesting to anyone.
4. The article wasn't finished by its author who left it as a work-in-progress. (Note the "to be done" remarks left in the article.) The article has been neglected for years and the author doesn't appear to be active; it's unlikely to ever be completed.
5. The article seems to be an orphan, suggesting the topic isn't relevant to any other article.

There's no good reason to keep it. -- Scyrme (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: even if this topic were notable, and there is no indication that it is, this would be a WP:TNT case. There are WP:OR issues in it, to add to the list given above by Scyrme. -- asilvering (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2022 (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.