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. Apart from the first, "weak" opinion, the "keep" side does not address the sourcing problems, which in light of the core policy WP:V trump most other arguments if, as here, they are not convincingly addressed. Sandstein 17:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self colour[edit]

Self colour (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)

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The current page is completely unsourced, the only attributable sources I could find were dictionary definitions (Chambers, Collins, Merriam-Webster & Oxford), none of which restrict the definition to animals. Cavalryman (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Not well sourced, but some sources for how the term is applied in animals can be found: for dogs, for sheep. Some authoritative overview and definition would be nice, naturally. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second source you have provided is likely reliable, the first not so, the website’s own terms and conditions states “we do not warrant its [website contents] completeness or accuracy...” Cavalryman (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Strangely, it would be relatively easy to write an article on "Genetic basis of self colour in sheep" - there must be a dozen studies on that [1]. But nothing that just gives an overview of the concept :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or merge into Animal coat. There are several studies and secondary sources that use the term self-coat, but GNG requires significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". William Harristalk 09:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Animal coat, as this is a term that should be explained somewhere.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if closed as merge what could be merged? There are no sources at hand that provide the broader colouration definition. Cavalryman (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep Merger into animal coat would be too restrictive because the concept originally arose in the study of flowers and it is now used in coating technology, e.g. Self-colour anodizing of titanium. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - do you have a reference for flowers? One odd title for a titanium article does not make usage wide-spread in that industry. William Harristalk 08:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--this is exactly the sort of technical information people read WP to learn. Don't dumb down the website even more by deleting this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is basically a single term in animal-keeping jargon, and Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There's not really anything here to merge that's appropriate and sourced properly. As stated above, this is just a bit of jargon and nothing more. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2020 (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.