Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Lying


 * 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 no consensus. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Child Lying

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Indiscriminate POV fork, article is not focused on one topic, written like an essay. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 09:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ! dave  21:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: I'm actually convinced that a topic such as this merits inclusion on Wikipedia and could even be expanded to include the effect of being part of a certain demographic and the consequent behavior, e.g. race, religion, parental income, etc. Carajou (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I suspect a page on this topic is notable and worthy of inclusion, but I have to protest the name of this page. It implies "child lying" is some recognized term and as far as I can tell it isn't. This is a page describing the study of lying in adolescent years and has sources to that effect, but they don't support the page's implication that this is accepted terminology. Wikipedia exists to explain terminology for notable topics, not invent it. I think this page should be renamed if kept. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I'm in agreement with that the current name is not suitable.  If this page survives the AfD, there should be a RM discussion about the article's title. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is notable as how children are raised obviously affects society when they have positions of power as adults. Moral education is an important topic. Needs some editing such as "what is a lie" heading/content after the intro is rather pedantic/repetitive. People know what lies are. It would also be a good idea to research what religious authorities say about the topic.Knox490 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. It does not appear from citations that there is a recognised area of social science research called "Child Lying". Article describes several studies of children's honesty but does not make a case for the notability of a concept of child lying - article could as easily be called Child Morality, Moral Development or Child Honesty. Sections describing what a lie is do not seem relevant and there may be some original research included (eg the statement without citations, "The results of these experiments do not completely disagree with Piaget's findings and even complement and validate portions of his work"). Tacyarg (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: I looked deep into this subject and article so bear with me. I found a complete build-up of an unsourced or under-sourced collection of synthesis resulting in original research. This is what is to love about the many branches (disciplines) of psychology covered on Wikipedia. This "study" (research/article) concerning an area of Child psychology, a branch or specialty of "developmental psychology", is interesting but where are the sources to actually back up the subject? Otr500 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Extra comments: The issue is that we (Wikipedia/editors) can place a few references on an article with a made up name, delve into the psychology side that makes it seem "official", interesting, or factually relevant, lets make it a C-class size but with only enough references (12 at this time) for a stub-class, and there you go, now we can argue why we should keep it.
 * The citation placement fosters and advances an article full of possible WP:OR. Open a paragraph with from three to five words, hit it with relevant (for that content) references, then follow it with a whole lot of content that is not sourced. Pretty cool idea if we can get away with it.
 * Now we have editors already wanting to expand this interesting "theory" or study into other areas and articles. This one could have been pieced together from a dissertation, and by "expanding" we can have more made up, unsourced, or wrongly sourced piece-meal articles. We can create another article revolving around "It would also be a good idea to research what religious authorities say about the topic.", as "research" surely can equal; make a new article. Want to see verified original research?: Look no farther than every single Results sub-sections. There are three of them with lots content with percentages and not one reference to back any of it up. Look at the third paragraph of the Significance section: "Both Piaget and Kolhberg neglected to observe the significance of how younger children fit into the equation of moral development. The experiments of Kang Lee and others have led to differing conclusions that have shed new light on how the moral and cognitive development of young children works.". I just looked up one of the four sources and what I see is a conclusion drawn by an editor, not the sources, and I would wager that will be the case for the other three. The sources have to conclusively back up content that is relevant to the subject (Child Lying), or it is just added "crap", and who are the "others"? How is "...differing conclusions that have shed new light on how the moral and cognitive development of young children works." related? To me the idea is interesting but someone please explain how we can actually "save this article". Cut it back to a lead only stub? Where should it go since the current title is certainly inappropriate? If notability is the main issue how will those be a solution? I can't even see an instance where we can ignore "the rules" and keep. Then again, a lot of things on Wikipedia don't make sense right? Otr500 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2018 (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.