Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universalism and relativism of color terminology


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Universalism and relativism of color terminology

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A collaborative essay by some students from University of California, Berkeley. Original research and far too detailed for an encyclopedia article. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename. This has been an important controversy in linguistics, basically pitting the followers of Whorf against the doubters.  I'm not enough of a specialist to say that everything here is encyclopedic, but there are plenty of sources.  I agree that the article needs editing, and I'm definitely not keen on the title, although it is better than the original one. Looie496 (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I've placed a pointer to this debate at WT:WikiProject Linguistics. Looie496 (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename I am in agreement with Looie496 -- I thought the article was going to be about theological Universalism. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I am a specialist and I agree that it should be kept. The article describes an important issue in modern linguistics and anthropolgy and it does so in a quite thorough and objective fashion. I don't see any OR either. ·Maunus· ƛ · 05:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Those kids from Berkeley sure know their stuff. I was expecting to see a scrappy high school enrichment project, not an encyclopedic article. It's well cited and notability is established.  The article isn't perfect; the name could be changed and some things could be rearranged (mostly the headlines on individual scholars), but I don't see why the entire article should be deleted. There's much more encyclopedic material than problematic.   Them  From  Space  03:58, 16 April 2009 (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.