Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selective color

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 no consensus. After two relists, editors are not really sure what to do with this article. Although there's a majority opinion for a move to color isolation, this is unsatisfactory as an outcome because it doesn't address JzG's original concern that this violates a core content policy which is WP:NOR.

Since there's clearly no consensus to delete the article but I can't leave it in situ while it violates a core policy, immediately after I make this "no consensus" close, I'll boldly redirect the title to Image editing#Selective color change. This is not part of the close; it's an editorial action which may be reverted in the normal way. I would, however, recommend not reverting me unless you're in the process of rewriting the article in a WP:NOR-compliant way.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Selective color

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

This article is pure WP:OR as written. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename color isolation - "selective color" is the name for the Photoshop tool but color isolation is the more general topic/photographic technique; and also "selective color" is too general of a term —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the content is wrong (WP:OR) and the title is wrong, too? But that's a keep rationale? Um. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JzG I never said the content was "wrong" and I never said it was WP:OR. I suggested a different title I thought was more likely to result in sources. But thanks for playing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Comment - Well, color isolation, is clearly a real thing (just do a google search for it and it's obvious). However, finding reliable sources may be a little difficult. You can find hundreds of tutorials on how to do color isolation in various photo editing software. However, can those be used as sources? I mean how "reliable" do they need to be, it's not like people are making up the technique of isolating color in images as we are all familiar with these types of images. I think with so many tutorials that helps lend to the credibility of this being notable, even though it doesn't really fall under the normal WP:GNG guidelines of having "significant coverage" unless random tutorials posted all over the web can be considered as such. I'm on the fence about this one, but am more inclined towards a weak keep and move to color isolation. (unsigned comment from War wizard90 (talk · contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:22, 7 June 2015 (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.