Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-truth (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus. PeaceNT (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half-truth[edit]

Way too much of this article sounds like the original research of the user who originally created this page (who appears to be User:Caesarjbsquitti); the fact that entire sections of the article lack citations further backs up my suspicion. The main reason why this article was kept in the first discussion was because User:Caesarjbsquitti stated that a book on the topic was to be published in early 2007. IMH, YTDMNST Morgan695 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant original research/synthesis, not really backed up by the references. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The rewrite hasn't cleaned too much up yet, but I'm willing to let this one pass, if barely. The subject truly is encyclopedic, and there's always a possibility for a rewrite. I'm trusting User:Dhartung to source the article as stated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Original AfD was predicated on OR issues, which had been addressed and was closed as Keep. Nothing indicates that the close was based on a forthcoming published book, nor does there seem to be any relevance to the claim. The multiple reliable and verifiable sources provided satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard, and any claimed WP:OR issues should be tagged as such, rather than used as an excuse for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a half-truth (as in a statement that is only partially true) and User:Caesarjbsquitti's interpretation of the concept, which he has written into this article. Frankly, I really don't think anything in the current article is salvagible. Morgan695 (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep ~~The article doesn't feature citations for the most part, and is generally poorly-written, as well as ill-defining of the concept of half-truths.~~ Agree with UsaSatsui; a complete is probably better than deletion, after all, as long as it's done relatively soon. Alloranleon (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable topic, regardless of whether the current page is OR or not. JJL (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it needs a complete overhaul due to the OR, and would probably be better off deleted in the meantime. Alloranleon (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Bit too involved for a wiktionary, which is the other possibilitycheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable enough, not wp:neo, and the article isn't that bad for a start. Needs cleaning up to cite what would otherwise be OR, but is very salvageable and worthwhile. Pharmboy (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The current version is the result of an overhaul by user:Dmoss, an update I personally do not see as satisfactory. As was stated by User:Alloranleon, I think this article is better off deleted in the interim of a valid article on this topic. Morgan695 (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is contrary to wp:IDONTLIKE, and if we spent half the time on the article that we spent on the AFD, there wouldn't be an issue. You can always be bold and make the edits yourself. Regardless, an article needing fixing is almost never a valid reason for deletion, it is a reason for improvement as long as the premise is valid. By my estimation, the current article may be flawed but is valid and was created in good faith. Pharmboy (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT really is about liking the topic. It is our responsibility, on the other hand, to be concerned about article quality. There is a point where articles need more than fixing. This is a really borderline case (see my comment below). --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Deception. It's not a neologism, but it is a form of deception. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sourcing some stuff in order to salvage the article. Not because it needs sourcing in order to convince people to keep it, obviously, but because it's likely to be kept and remain in horrid shape otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 06:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. StaticElectric (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This needs work, not a deletion. The solution could lie in a merge, a rewrite, better sourcing, whatever, but a deletion certainly isn't the answer. And can someone tell me just how deleting an article makes it better? --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a pretty decent account of what a half-truth is, backed up by examples from statistics and philospophy, as well as everyday life ( eating 6 servings of vegetables a day, but as pizza toppings ). I don't see any "original research" as there is no editor-discovered or editor-deduced material in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm primarily concerned about the section Purpose and the made-up examples. The other sections are "merely" disjointed. Sources discussing why someone would tell a half-truth, shall we say, do not abound. It's probably fixable, but needs major work yet. --Dhartung | Talk 08:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel the examples have a lot of explanatory value, but go ahead and delete the Purpose section. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deception, No need for its own article, especially with the poor state its been in. -Djsasso (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no redirect; stand alone; it is the term that will be accessed. It is a meaty issue commonly discussed throughout Wikipedia and one that is being eaten away by the Five Pillars. It is one of many types of deception, so many that they are listed individually in blue. Otherwise the 'Deception' article will get too large. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.