Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color symbolism and 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   delete. JForget 00:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Color symbolism and psychology

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The premise of the article is flawed; psychology is an actual science, whereas the rest is just contestable mysticism. Mixing the two in one article makes very little sense. The sourced material should be moved to different or new articles where appropriate, and the new-age content should be separated from the content about psychological research or forgotten about entirely where it isn't documenting a directly attributable belief (with sources). Snied (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the question is whether anything worthwhile can be salvaged. If anything, it might be by deleting everything prior to the Psychology section? But then almost every sentence even in that remaining section is crying out for citation-required tags. AllyD (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the salvageable stuff is pretty marginal too, that's why I personally believe that deletion is the best option. If the article itself is to be salvaged it will need to be edited very heavily and also renamed. Snied (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per given rationale. its really 2 potential articles, and current content is too unsourced.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Much of the content regarding colors as per specific cultures and religions is true and can be sourced - it should be restructured into 2 articles, but throwing it all away would be a waste. The article also does need to be more clear in what color meanings are universal across cultures and which are specific - I'm guessing many of the meanings are specific to primarily Western countries but aren't specified as so. 128.113.241.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC).

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. It is too much of a muddle to keep in the article space but it could be put in somebody's user space if they think parts of it are useful to writing better articles on these two subjects. A wealth of source material exists on these subjects, much of it promoting various views of the meaning of different colours. The articles need to cover all the main views rather than make definite statements according to one of the theories. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Badly written and mostly unsourced. The few available sources are not peer-reviewed and frankly look fishy. At a glance, it seems to present a mostly western preference for using certain colours for different things as some sort of universal law. This collection of pseudoscientific nonsense is really a shame as there is actually quite a bit of interesting peer-reviewed material about color psychology (like http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a790571796~db=all~order=page). Smocking (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 13 February 2010 (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.