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. Ironholds (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Green[edit]

Pakistan Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

POV fork of Shades_of_green#Pakistan_green & Green in Islam, in fact everything in this article seems to have been copied and pasted from those. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's not a POV fork when an article is expanded from the parent article. It's the extension of the same article. Parent article is obvious to have a summary of this article, hence the similarity of content but this article is not a copy paste of that. It has more information than that one. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been expanded from the other article, it has been copied and pasted from it. There is nothing new there to warrant a new article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's a notable article, agreed with Top Gun, it should be kept. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes notability guidelines. A colour is a colour, and colours have their own articles. This is a real colour, as indicated by the fact that it has its own hex triplet #006600. It is also the national colour of Pakistan, being the colour of the flag of Pakistan and many other national symbols. Obvious notability, and obvious keep. Mar4d (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pass GNG? "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in which other national symbols is the colour used please? Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The section on "green in Islam" needs to be deleted as it isn't relevant. After that, there is a single source and it seems oddly tied to the patriotism for a country. There's no reason at all why this warrants a separate article; it doesn't even come close to passing WP:GNG considering that this color has no relevance outside of a country's flag. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant. Green in Islam is directly related to Pakistan. Pakistan was made for Islam, in the name of Islam, and that's wht it's flag is also green. Therefore both the sections and article should be kept. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the clearest example of a pure violation (in intent, not in action) of WP:NPOV I have ever seen. Your own personal opinion is not a proof that content about a religion bears any relation at all to information about the shade of green on some country's flag. It's also quite a strong indication of the lack of objectivity on the part of some of those pushing to keep this article. I would posit to the closing editor that what we're seeing here in terms of patriotism for a certain country should be taken into account when deciding what counts toward consensus and what doesn't. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not patriotism. I just quoted the facts, but these facts are not commonly accepted abroad. Just to relate the both phenomena, these quotes are necessary are were never ever a violation. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Faizan I hope that you understand that we are not talking Pakistan's creation right now. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That quote was important, well related and relevant. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be, but that does not mean that you put up a whole paragraph just to tell why Green colour is important in Islam, and then why is Islam important to Pakistan, and then why Pakistan's flag is green. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but due to a paragraph, you will delete an article? Better improve the article. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find even a single reliable source for this topic. It fails WP:N. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the references in the article. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are about importance of Green in Islam. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not mentioned in any of the references given, and I can't find any WP:RS mentioning the term either after a quick search in English. The dissenting view by the article's creator above that "these facts are not commonly accepted abroad" is an instant warning bell for WP:OR. It's plainly a POV synthesis of Flag of Pakistan and Green in Islam, with nothing of value to redirect or merge. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are just missing Reliable Sources? The article should be improved then, not deleted! See this as a RS. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you series? In that way thee can be a RS for every colour, in fact for every Pokemon! Please try to understand that articles about colours can be kept if they are have some cultural importance. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Pakistan green" is indeed mentioned alongside the hex web colour #006600 on several web developers' websites, but not on any that I would consider WP:RS in terms of any official status of the colour, and as a web development colour it is a non-notable WP:Neologism at best. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (Pakistan) website describes the field simply as "white and dark green" on its official flag page at [1]. Captain Conundrum (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that articles for individual Pokemon have more justification for possible creation than this article. At least we can find independent sources mentioning different Pokemon. There's nothing denoting "Pakistan green" as even being a recognized color. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did not you see the source above? Instead of deletion, it can be improved. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improve away then: if you can find reliable sources showing that the colour "Pakistan green" is notable then I'd be happy to change my vote. Captain Conundrum (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are these enough?: 1, 2, 3, 4(With reference to Muslims), 5. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's four non-notable web dev sites, already discounted above, plus a non-notable blog post about the colour green that mentions the word "Muslim" but says nothing about Pakistan. I'm sure you can find many more of these, but please save yourself some time by first reading WP:RS. Captain Conundrum (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The colour is quite important as well as quite popular. The official websites just say it to be dark green, though it is more darker than that. —Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 07:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it WP:Notable? How is it important? How do we know it's darker than dark green, if the official websites only say "dark green"? Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all websites only say "Dark Green". Many sites mention it as "Pakistan Green shade" too, as cited in the sources above. Faizan -Let's talk! 08:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! —Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 08:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's no evidence of this being used as anything other than a colour in web development, I'm removing the section about the role of the colour green in Islam, and claims of its use in the flag, since there's absolutely nothing cited so far to tie the two together. Your evidence for its notability so far is solely from colour lists for web development. Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, my removal of the WP:OR was immediately reverted. What's your rationale for keeping a section about Green in Islam that makes no mention whatsoever of Pakistan? Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then if you already expected it, why did you do it? Now for your information, I would like to tell you that this is not the case of WP:OR as the article in Britannica also mentions the relation of colour green with Islam. (Have a look at it if you have it) —Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 09:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope always beats expectation for me. I cannot find a Britannica article mentioning Pakistan Green: can you please provide the citation? Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be getting worse and worse. Notability is proven when reliable secondary sources significantly cover the topic, so your opinion that this article id notable is completely invalid. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see also WP:Articles for deletion/Islamic Green, created by the same editor. The result was merge to Green in Islam. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not "created" by the same editor, please verify yourself in article's history. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Created by the same editor, with edit summary "Created the Article about Pakistani Green Shade, information mainly added from Shades of green." Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh.. I meant that existed before with a redirect! Faizan -Let's talk! 12:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But still you will be referred as the creator. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited the remaining editors who contributed to WP:Articles for deletion/Islamic Green to contribute here too, since that article was highly similar, differing only in the hex code and the more specific claim of a single country's flag in this article. Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No secondary sources discuss this thing. --regentspark (comment) 16:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Shades of green#Pakistan green. Firstly: content indeed has been copy-pasted from the Shades of green article. Secondly: We do need coverage in reliable sources, even if it's a colour. User:Mar4d says it is notable just because it has its own hex triplet, but there are a lot of colours that have their own hex triplets and yet are not notable. Also, being the colour of just one national flag is not enough to establish notability (reliable sources lack, anyway). Paris Green is an example of a notable colour that indeed has coverage in reliable sources (which is mostly because it is not only a colour but a chemical compound as well). smtchahal^(talk) 16:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RegentsPark. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unfortunately, no more details are available. I tried to search for some more info but it is repetition. This article can be covered by Shades of Green and Pakistani flag (section for color). Will change my vote if the article is expanded with solid details. Samar ^Talk 09:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NOTHOWTO (sources exclusively concern the hex code). Miniapolis 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.