Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of 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 Speedy keep as no valid rationale was given, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of color[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)

Either my time machine has sent me to ancient Greece, or my continua device has sent me to the deranged imagination of Sir Alan Sokal. This article does not seem to acknowledge the latest developments in science, such as this one, discovered in 1671 by Newton and mentioned in the lede of article Color: Color categories and physical specifications of color are associated with objects through the wavelength of the light that is reflected from them., which clearly states that color is a reducible property, while this article still gives undue weight to the claim otherwise. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a policy-based reason for deletion in the nomination. The philosophy of color is obviously a notable topic. For instance, see the SEP entry on color and sources therein. While the current article is not well organized and could use a lot of improvement in sourcing and prose, it has a few of the basics of the field. Any issues of undue weight or non-neutrality can be fixed by ordinary editing. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 13:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Deletion is not cleanup, and content problems are not a valid reason for deletion (unless the article has no content at all). WP:UNDUE content can be removed, but that does not mean the whole article should be. I believe this falls under WP:SK1. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – As per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nom gives no reason for deletion (either policy-based or not), just reasons as to why the article is allegedly in need of improvements. A more adequate place to raise these issues would be WP:CLEAN. Impru20^talk 18:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep criterion 1. Nominator's rationale amounts to the assertion that the past few centuries of epistemologists have failed to recognize that a question they were discussing had actually been solved by Science. This seems to be trying to pick a classic kind of Two Cultures fight, hence the Sokal reference, but it is not a deletion rationale. FourViolas (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep under WP:SKCRIT#1. I see that the article hasn't received much attention over the past year. Nowak Kowalski, it would be great if you could update the article yourself since you appear to be knowledgeable on the topic. WP:BOLD. — Newslinger talk 23:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.