Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lie-to-children

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 06:02, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Lie-to-children
Neologism coined in a sci-fi novel. Doesn't seem to have taken hold anywhere else. Google searching is problematic, since the phrase "Lie to children" is popular enough, but none of the hits I went through used the phrase as a noun, or used it with hyphens. A search for the phrase "lie-to-children" + Discworld returns 23 hits. DaveTheRed 07:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 *  speedy strong keep Not a sci-fi novel. Used in at least 2-3 books, as referenced, useful definition, recall hearing it before seeing it in print. Not a neologism anymore at this point in time. Was proposed for vfd before, consensus KEEP after article had been edited&improved to make it acceptable. vfd consensus already reached at an earlier date, hence speedy qualifier. Kim Bruning 08:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I still think re-vfd should be an automatic speedy keep (Say no to double jeopardy!), but that's not policy yet. Kim Bruning 11:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What was lost in the edit conflict between me and Radiant! was my request for you to point at the prior VFD discussion, because I cannot find it. Looking at the edit history of the article I see that this is the first time that the VFD notice has been applied to it.  And this discussion page was newly created by DaveTheRed. Uncle G 12:40, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I specifically remember making a comment to the then nominator along the lines of him using vfd to make me tidy up my work  ;-) (which I subsequently did :-P ) I'll try search too, but vfd history is notoriously difficult. Perhaps the article had a slightly different name at the time? It's changed around a bit. Kim Bruning 13:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ouw dear, all I can find is a comment in the history by User:Stevertigo, which inquires if vfd might be nescesary, but I don't see him subsequently put up a vfd posting. (I checked his edit log for april 2004), and that's what I likely remembered. *Slight embarresment*, please be kind, this was almost a year ago now! The discussion I recalled is on user talk here:.
 * Since both articles and consensus can change over time, a blanket rule preventing re-nomination for deletion is a bad rule. In any case, there's no problem to solve with instruction creep here.  The only re-nominations that are really problematic are the few ones such as Votes for deletion/Professor Birch (recount), where an article is re-nominated an excessively short period after the a discussion was closed as "keep" (11 hours in this case).  Such nominations have been generally dealt with reasonably, in my experience.  Uncle G 12:40, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
 * Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 10:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Phrase is used in some Terry Pratchett novels (particularly Soul Music; also lies-to-wizards in Science of Discworld). If someone can substantiate that it is also used elsewhere, keep. Radiant_* 10:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * As Kim Bruning said, The Science of Discworld is not a science-fiction novel. Google searching is easier if one uses Google Groups, as this phrase for describing the concept of progressively closer approximations to reality in education has gained popularity in discussions where rigour is habitual.  Here is an occurrence from sci.stat.math and here is another from rec.games.frp.dnd for example.  Keep but without the speedy appellation.  DaveTheRed's nomination wasn't vandalism. Uncle G 10:50, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
 * Ah oh ok, sorry, though I think speedy for a re-vfd (even if accidental) is probably still appropriate, I'll switch for now and wait for policy to catch up. Kim Bruning 11:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It happens rarely enough that it doesn't require a separate policy, and any article voted 'kept' is usually 'kept' on the second vote as well. Various proposals for speedy keep have been rejected by consensus (mostly because of potential of being POV and abusable), and I don't see how this would fare any differently. Radiant_* 11:59, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, roger! Those proposals are just on vfd talk? Kim Bruning 12:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of them. Also try deletion policy talk, and the category of rejected policies. I'm afraid there's no easy indexing system here. Radiant_* 09:42, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm familiar with the concept, but wasn't aware it had a name (nor that mass wasn't a constant when you do physics beyond GCSE level). Thryduulf 13:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. ComCat 02:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.