Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristimulus timbre model


 * 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   merge to Timbre. v/r - TP 02:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Tristimulus timbre model

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionable mathematics that do not show notability, usage or relevancy to a broader usage as to harmonics. It lacks context and if it can be used, should be merged to the harmonics page - but its stand alone or credibility is shaky. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not that I really understand what this article is about, but the article on which it is based was cited 138 times according to Google Scholar—is that significant? הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 04:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I also notice that this particular timbre model (an important concept in psychoacoustics, apparently) inspired a new design of synthesizer. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 04:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I work in the research field where this kind of thing is relevant. As far as I know, not many people use these tristimulus values to represent timbre or harmonics, so I'd agree that there's no particular need for a standalone article. I don't feel particularly strongly either way. I created the article, a few years back, and a couple of systems provided tristimulus as an option so it seemed current, but now I'd say it's not particularly pertinent. --mcld (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the explanation. The fact it is a method and is used helps establish its need for Wikipedia, but I am concerned that as a stand alone article it will do next to nothing. Would you agree that the harmonics or any other page would be a suitable place to include such a short segment? I much rather keep this than delete it, but I know not where it can or should go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)




 * Merge to the section Timbre. GScholar produces 10 hits for "Tristimulus timbre" and among those papers are only a small number of researchers. There don't seem to be enough in-depth independent sources to pass notability thresholds. But the model is real and has been used as a convenient low-dimensional representation of the harmonic aspects of a timbre, as in SoniMime. Per WP:PRESERVE, we prefer to preserve verifiable information through merging rather than deletion. I'd recommend merging a short description and a ref verifying to Timbre, which seems the best target given that we have no general article on timbre theory or modeling. --Mark viking (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Timbre: per Mark's reasoning. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 23:20, 9 November 2013 (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.