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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lie[edit]

Lie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KDS4444^Talk 23:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Keep - WP:NOTDICTIONARY states in its nutshell, "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are." This article is about types of lies (as well as detection of lies, their consequences, psychology, etc.), not things that are lies. The article is about the concept, not the word itself (see Wikipedia:NOTDICTIONARY#Major differences). NOTDICTIONARY does not seem to apply here. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination seems frivolous in that the page in question does not resemble a dictionary entry and the nomination does not address the page and its content in any way; it just makes a vague wave to a policy. Andrew (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Ludicrous submission just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praise.--Penbat (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems pretty encyclopedic to me. Topics such as the psychology of lying are absolutely legitimate in an academic context.[1][2][3] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per EvergreenFir. Matty.007 11:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per EvergreenFir, seems encyclopedic. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Harsh (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As already stated, there are plenty of reliable sources cited within the article that discuss the concept of lying, not just define it. Coincidentally it is a Level 4 vital article too. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (WP:SNOW) - Clearly not a dictionary definition. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You kidding me? Shoosh yeah keep. This page describes what a lie is, providing many examples and is not just a mere dictionary definition. There are plenty of sources provided to give the topic at hand notability. I concur with the others who voted keep. 68.192.177.199 (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2014 (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.