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. Any merge can be discussed on the talk page or done manually. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Crayola[edit]

[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)

Redundant timeline. Merge to main Crayola article. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 23:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on History of Crayola crayons. This is a historical article, and it may make sense to have this timeline in the article on History of Crayola crayons. Vorbee (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is about the company's history, not just the crayons, and we're talking about adding the full contents of a sizeable article to an even bigger article. That doesn't make any sense. Keep them separate, since they serve different purposes, and would be unwieldy if combined. P Aculeius (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listed for deletion by the same nominators:

P Aculeius (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merges to History of Crayola crayons (and Crayola for the non-crayon stuff). I agree with Vorbee about the benefits of a merge. Furthermore, there is a lot more genuine history here (albeit largely unreferenced) than there is in History of Crayola crayons, which is mostly stuffed with cruft that needs to be removed. I have suggested stubbing that back to quite a short article. Adding in some of the information here would build it back up in a more genuinely historical manner. Ideally the merges should be done more as prose rather than as lists and the merges should avoid most of the big lists of colours. That said, if we are to have a few lists of colours then the format here is infinitely preferable to the unverifiable multicoloured tables in the other articles. While product range introductions and discontinuations are good content, individual colour introductions and "retirements" are generally not notable and these should not be merged except in exceptional cases. All we need is a note saying something like When Crayola discontinues manufacture of a colour they term this "retirement" and then give a reference to prove this. That reference will presumably also provide the complete list of introduced and retired colours which should be enough to keep the fans happy without us needing to list them all. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per SK1; the nomination fails to advance any argument for deletion, instead requesting merger, for which there are ordinary processes of editing and discussion. See also WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2018 (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.