Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color psychology


 * 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 Keep   Yash  t  101   13:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Color psychology
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article is a mass of poorly written pseudoscience. The "poorly written" bit could in principle be fixed; the "pseudoscience" cannot, because the subject is little more than a marketing fad, reinforced in large part by the article's continuing existence.

Some notable people (Jung) have written about the supposed effects of colour of human thought. Such cases, I think, can be covered more than sufficiently with footnotes in the relevant articles. Reinforcing the idea that there exists a respectable discipline of "colour psychology" is not worth gathering these few ideas together. lws (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given that there have been several books published on this topic, it is clearly suitable for an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly there is some pseudoscience here, & the article is not well structured, but its a proper subject: there is a lot of evidence to show that, for instance, the colour of a food or even its packaging affects perception o taste & also that the use of colour in environments has a behavioural effect.TheLongTone (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable; see The Encyclopedia of Mental Health for an example of an encyclopaedic entry about this topic in another work. Warden (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Google books alone has 15000 entries going back to the 1920s. Current condition of the article should not be used as a rationale for deletion.    Th e S te ve   07:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just because it's a fringe theory, that doesn't make it not notable. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.