Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harmonic (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The result was Withdrawn by nominator - page was rewritten-in-place using content copied from Color theory (diff) and the page was moved to Harmony (color). See the discussion here and on Talk:Harmony (color) for details. For future reference

(non-admin closure) davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  01:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Harmonic (color)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm nominating this article for deletion as it presents a totally wrong explanation for how color works. In the first place, it is contrary to the quantum understanding of light waves, as photons do not interact (directly) with each other. Second, color is a psychological phenomenon that is created by the brain processing signals received from stimulated photosensitive cells of four different types, three kinds of cones and the rods, each type responding to a different spectrum of light wavelengths. Each cell only fires off a signal proportional to its response to an incoming wavelength; within the cells themselves there is no color discernment. Each photon has exactly one unique wavelength and photon responses are integrated over time, per the quantum nature of light. Color "happens" when the brain processes the different inputs, the proportions of the different stimuli dictating the colors we experience. This is the scientifically accepted explanation for how color works, without recourse to harmonics, and thus this article is completely bunk. TokyoJunkie (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: You have not said why this article should get deleted. If you think that this article is giving some "wrong explanation" then you can improve the article with reliable sources. -- Human 3015   TALK    03:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't believe the article can be improved because the entire premise of the article is an incorrect idea of how light works. For me to improve it satisfactorily, I'd have to rewrite the entire thing in contradiction with the title and the original contents. The explanation I've given in my rationale has been covered extensively in other articles on the subject. TokyoJunkie (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are saying that you have to completely rewrite the article, it means this subject deserves an article. You can create a draft about this article in your sandbox according to your time and then you can shift some matter from youe sandbox to main article. -- Human 3015   TALK   04:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    04:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that the article cannot possibly be improved in any way. Rewriting it wouldn't actually be rewriting it at all, but rather writing a completely different, superfluous article with the correct conception. The resultant article would be unnecessary because it is already covered by other articles on physics and color perception. It is also not very well-sourced as far as I can tell, with only two sources that supposedly back up the physics claims and one that is related to computer graphics and not physics as such. The article is in line with WP:CB, it is only weakly verifiable, and furthermore it is not notable. The only part of it that makes any sense to me is the idea of color harmonies, but that is already covered in color theory and therefore I don't need to go over it here. I submit that I am possibly being overzealous and that some expert input is needed. But from my understanding of physics and color psychology, next to nothing is of value on this page, and what little there is that has value is already covered elsewhere. TokyoJunkie (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway, we can wait for more comments. Cheers. -- Human 3015   TALK   04:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Question Is this revision of 10:45, 14 January 2012 a reasonable stub to go back to?  Granted, it's practically a WP:Dictionary definition but if it's not factually incorrect then I would rather revert to and build on it than delete the page entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by davidwr (talk • contribs) 04:52, 18 October 2015
 * Yeah, we can sort of do that. Instead of just going back to a dictionary definition, I suggest (per below) we rename it to "Color harmony" or "Harmony (color)" and use the existing text from the color harmony section of color theory as the foundation to expand upon. TokyoJunkie (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can live with this outcome. Once all participants have said either "I like this outcome" or at least "I can live with this outcome" you can withdraw/speedy-close the AFD.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  06:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep/TNT No rationale from nom to completely delete (= not wanting any article having to do with harmonic/ious colors). If the content is wrong on a faulty premise, dump the whole thing and rewrite from scratch. That a topic is already covered in a more general article (Color theory) doesn't mean it cannot be split when exceptional separate notability is present. This book on color (theory) among possibly others has a whole chapter on harmony of colors.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 05:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, that is a good point. Color harmony might just warrant a whole article of its own since it is a rather deep topic of study. Perhaps the article should be renamed to "Color harmony" with the existing text from the corresponding section in color theory as the foundation? TokyoJunkie (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment : I've decided to rescind the deletion nomination in favor of turning it into a separate article under Harmony (color). I will get rid of all the nonsense and use the section from color theory as the foundation text. TokyoJunkie (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2015 (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.