Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Theory TK of Visual Proportions


 * 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. Big Dom  15:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Theory TK of Visual Proportions

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article on non-notable topic, referenced only with self-published sources. Possible conflict of interest from major contributor. Using WP as a promotional tool. No English sources. Poor english in aricle renders the topic indecipherable. Famousdog (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * After proposing deletion of this article, I have had extensive discussions with the major contributor to this article beginning here. Perhaps other editors would like to review our discussions? Famousdog (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I am just not convinced that it satisfies WP:N based on having multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. This appears to be a presentation of the research of an architecture professor, the creator of the article, with very limited English. His writing is very difficult to follow. The article seems to be an effort to promote work of limited notability. He never explains in the text where the "TK" comes from. In his diagram, "TK" equals the square root of "TC" which is not defined other than being some rectangle related to the height of an observer. He apparently claims that the area of distinct vision of an observer who does not move his eyes around has a certain mathematical formula, similar to the "shape of a mental image," which has implications for how architecture should be proportioned. Apparently TK refers to Spanish or Catalan abbreviations related to the square root of a product related to human proportions. From study of the perception literature, I know that the actual "area of distinct vision" varies between individuals and is not the neat ellipse he claims. Even if it were, people in a building are not forced to stand immobile, and they scan the scene, looking up, down, left and right. I am surprised that his diagram still appears in the article, since it is clearly marked as being copyrighted by him, violating Wikipedia's licensing requirements. The theory was apparently privately published in 1982 in Castilian, not any evidence of notability. It was published again in 1997 in Catalan, and it is hard to be sure how independent that publication was, but it appears to be associated with a university, though as an "eprints" from "upcommons" it does not appear to be a paper book.He mailed his publication to a disciple of famous architect Le Corbusier, who provided some kind words about his theory, hardly proof of notability. His references to show the importance of his TK theory include a dead link supposedly showing that some building was constructed according to it.  Edison (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Somehow the display of the next AFD is being merged with this one in the way AFD presently displays, so there is reference to the religious beliefs of Beethoven, completely irrelevant to this discussion of a theory of visual perception. Edison (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Articles for deletion/Ludwig van Beethoven's religious views (3rd nomination) is now fixed. GB fan 16:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete unless: a) its writer can rewrite it in English, b) it's explained what TK is, c) TK proves not to be telekinesis, d) it is proven that the article is based on secondary sources. At the moment it just lacks any sort of coherence.  It is hoped that a deletion request can motivate its writer into tidying it up and making it worth keeping.
 * Oh, and I've followed some of Famousdog and the author's discussions and there's nothing I've read that doesn't sound like a religious cultist trying to sell his snake oil. Sorry and all that. --Matt Westwood 20:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and move to Kim Lloveras i Montserrat. So far as I can determine, only he has written at book length on this: OCLC title search, and this academic article is also by him. The three graduate theses don't add much to the notability picture, and I'm having difficulty accessing them anyway. On the other hand there's a substantial newspaper article on the prof himself: here (followed by this article by him in the same paper on the theory; and this is a prize awarded to him. This appears to be a decent publications list. I'm wondering whether he is department chair? He's described as "titular professor." We're all hampered by the apparent impossibility of tracking down what the abbreviation TK is supposed to mean - but I think a stronger case can be made for notability of the professor, enough to justify a short article. User:EspaisNT self-identifies on his talkpage as Kim Lloveras i Montserrat. There is also now User:Kim Lloveras, whose only edit is to the talkpage of the article, and whose userpage was created by EspaisNT - presumably a second account of the same person unaware of policy being against such. (He's demonstrably having trouble understanding how Wikipedia works - he's been adding lists of URLs to sources everywhere except in the article and in this discussion. That shouldn't have any bearing on the determination of notability, although I really wish he would explain what TK is intended to signify!) Hopefully the professor can point us to somewhere stating he is a department head or listing his awards in full; I had trouble finding a faculty listing at upc.edu. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete after reading it I have no idea what the topic is. It's more like a poorly written, rambling essay than an article, with lists of points instead of paragraphs, other very odd formatting choices including random images with foreign captions. Whether Kim Lloveras i Montserrat is notable I don't know but I doubt an article on him/her would look anything like this.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete.Highly questionable notability combined with almost total unintelligibility, evidently written by a contributor with a conflict of interest. In as much as I can make sense of the theory at all, it is apparently wrong, but that is irrelevant. Simply not Wikipedia material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment My comments above about the theory being apparently wrong are not the basis for my Delete recommendation. I read Andy's explanation for his delete !=vote and thought I should mention that my unhappiness with the theory is not the basis for my deletion recommendation. Edison (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification My suggestion that the theory is wrong (if I understand it correctly), is likewise not intended as an argument for deletion - there are notable 'wrong' theories, and it isn't our job to decide anyway. I think if anything, my comment was more about me not being able to understand it. It might actually be 'right', profound, and meaningful - but unless it can be understood, my apparent misunderstanding is itself more relevant to questions about the suitability of the article than any ultimate 'rightness' - for Wikipedia to be useful, it must communicate, and whatever else the article does, it singularly fails to achieve this. We cannot include content in Wikipedia on the basis that we don't understand it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete--Musamies (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2011 (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.