Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms associated with the color...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of terms associated with the color blue, red, green, brown, purple, violet was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Tally: 4 keep, 17 delete, 7 merge and redirect. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:20, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Esoteric, unscientific, weird, delete. --Edcolins 20:51, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Please read the article on color psychology and see Blue#Usage.2C_symbolism.2C_colloquial_expressions before commenting here.

  • I'm reminded of Douglas Adams's Hooloovoos. Delete. Lacrimosus 21:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE! Well organized, actual real life associations Andros 1337 21:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. These are well-known associations which are of interest to artists, quilters, painters, and anybody interested in the psychology of color. Such associations far predate science fiction, and have nothing to do with Douglas Adams besides. Many similar but less complete lists can be found by proper Google searches. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 22:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Inherently POV. Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:19, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not so, as you would see from a Google test. Both Asian and Western views have been incorporated. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 22:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Blue. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:33, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • The merging idea may work, but Eequor is correct about the color psychology. This article is not POV. Andros 1337 22:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Yes, I know. Still, what we have here is a set of words. That's it. No scientific proof, no survey results, no implications, no motivations. It's just a list of words. The title is the closest thing you get to an explanation, and the list has no criteria of inclusion or exclusion. At least with List of people who died with tortoises on their heads you had an include/exclude. It was a set that had meaning. This is just any word associated with the color blue. I associate the word "Almost" with the color because of an album title. Do I get to include that? Come on! Geogre 23:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC):
    • Agreeing with Geogre: Delete. No proof of any of the associations, no indication which cultures hold which views. I think the information in Blue is much more appropriate to an encyclopedia. Joyous 00:09, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • The criteria for including terms in these articles are:
      • the term must be commonly associated with the color, which the articles state
      • at least two other websites must include the term in a description of the symbolic meanings of the color (in other words, it is easily verifiable that the term is commonly associated with the color)
    • You're welcome to create Analysis of ''list of terms associated with the color blue'' if you think it's necessary. This article follows the standard format for lists of articles which are related to a specific topic. This complaint seems more like an argument for expanding the article than for deleting it. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 00:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no there there. Delete. RickK 23:53, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • merge with blue, etc. why is this page editing method all gone wrong? Dunc_Harris| 00:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into a psychology section of Blue. --Golbez 00:40, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Changing to Delete now that I've seen a better list already exists in Blue. Some of these things could be merged, but the rest isn't justified. --Golbez 01:35, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless annotated with further information and sources. Most of this is obviously true enough but also trivial, presented without context. Better a list as given by a named researcher who had done some original work on color or some comparative lists by more than one researcher with notes. Not all associations are equal. Sky blue and navy blue and dull, greyish blue are not the same. We have emotions listed, but also 'sky' and 'sea'. So why not also 'turquoise' and 'sapphire' and various flowers and "bluebird"? There is no connecting material in the articles linked to (at least not in the ones I checked), except for blue. That's where the POV comes in. By whose original research is this purportedly more complete list also a more accurate list or less accurate list than other lists? I look at it and think, someone's just gone through a bunch of stuff on the web about blue and indiscriminately pulled out all the words and put them in alphabetical order. It is unfortunately too common in Wikipedia articles for people to trust what they find in websites. If it's found on two websites, it is valid information? Pull it off, slap it down, off to the next article. The trouble with this list is that it isn't even wrong. It's mush. The annotated list in the Blue article is, in comparison, very well done. Could be merged as a single list of terms, in a single sentence, in the blue article. But why exactly this list of terms? Whose POV? Shouldn't some of them in this article be on the same line, separated by a comma? The topic does not lend itself to an unannotated list. Jallan 00:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge whatever's not already covered in blue into that article. Or possibly keep, merging in the other direction. If kept, send to cleanup to help clarify this article's scope. The argument for having two articles is valid: this article is about the color psychology behind the color, not the color itself. Please note that it is true that each of these associations needs thorough analysis and citations. This is an encylopedia, after all. However, it has never been our policy to delete articles because they aren't yet comprehensive. If that were the case, then we'd have precisely 0 articles. • Benc • 02:21, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • If a merge is decided, we should not forget about the list of termas associated with red, green, brown, purple, and violet. Andros 1337 02:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Point of view, unverifiable, even if correct, with high probability depends on culture. Hence every association must be explained in detail: who, when, where and why. Mikkalai 02:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with the main colour article, delete if that is not possible or has already been done. Don't create redirects. -- Chuq 03:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • "Merge and delete" isn't strictly possible under the GFDL.
  • Merge and redirect all to the relevant articles. -Sean Curtin 04:14, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. --Yath 05:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Please don't merge, there's nothing to merge. RickK 05:57, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Previous keep it vote defended saying - of interest to artists...I am an artist and found the list to be ireleventat. In my experience, the meaning of color in art is generated mostly in relation to formal and compostitional elements operating within the work itself. In contempary western art, culteral and other subjective 'meaning' surounding a particular color does enter into the equation, but how much a part these determiners play is largely at the descrestion of the artist's intention. Annotated lists per traditional culture would be relevant anthropologically - but any list purporting to be universal would have to be so long as to be of questionable utility. -Magbhitu 2:27 Sep 24,2002
  • Delete them all - there's better lists on the colour pages themselves. --G Rutter 12:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely positively do NOT merge with the colour articles. Instead, why not merge with color psychology? This is the field that is claiming all these associations, so it makes sense to list them there. Other fields of study may make different associations (Indian Rasa possibly?). Then Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If other articles can benefit from a merge before deletion, all the better, but delete. Do not redirect. --Improv 15:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't delete or merge - The page is not about scientific correlation from colours to words, but rather the occurrence of these links in popular imaginary. --Nihil
  • Merge into each individual color, and link each to color psychology. This sort of thing could be an amazing resource for artists, art critics, filmmakers and -critics, literary critics, etc... It's weird and esoteric, yes, but when backed up with research, it does mean something. --zenohockey 20:32, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless anotated. ElBenevolente 00:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - obviously POV Sarge Baldy 12:16, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --Jll 14:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all: a list of words with no context as to why = pov. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.