Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unique hues
Hmm, it looks like due diligence in investigating notability was not performed before nomination. Please see  for the steps one should take before nominating an article. The first page of Google hits for "Unique Hues" shows multiple links to academic papers on the subject. Searching Google Scholar yields 1,300 hits and scanning the list shows plenty of peer-reviewed articles in reliable journals such as Visual Neuroscience and Journal of the Optical Society of America. Searching Google Books yields 2,950 hits; some of these are textbooks such as, http://books.google.com/books?id=-fNJZ0xmTFIC&dq=%22Unique+hues%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s The Science of Color and handbooks, such as http://books.google.com/books?id=Fs-5McBOqU4C&dq=%22Unique+hues%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s The Blackwell Handbook of Sensation and Perception. The topic is ''highly'' notable. It has been studied in visual neuroscience and the psychology of perception. It has also been studied in anthropology. The fact that there are multiple approaches to the topic does not preclude writing an article on it; one just needs to include the main approaches with due weight. Any problems with the article can be fixed through editing and consensus building on the article's talk page; AfD is not for cleanup, see  for details. This article should thus be kept
— User:Mark, 17:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BEFORE||WP:NOTFORCLEANUP (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)