Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truism


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ or more specifically there is a consensus against deleting the article. There is no consensus as between keeping or merging, but we do not need to have that discussion here, anyone wishing to take it forward can use the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Truism

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I believe this article fails WP:NOTDICT, and I don't see any potential for expansion. I soft-redirected it a few months ago to Wiktionary's truism entry, but this has now been reverted and contested, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Philosophy. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggested WP:AFD for this, in lieu of unilaterally blanking it and soft-redirecting it to Wiktionary, since there was objection to doing the latter. I didn't mean to take it to AfD immediately without a proper WP:BEFORE effort. In a matter of seconds, I can find sources addressing truisms as a concept of "beliefs that are widely shared and rarely questioned", including in "values", at the intersection of psychology and cultural anthropology ; truisms as a form of logic fallacy because "A truism is not a genuine pro-position—it does not put forward or propound anything. As a statement, it cannot constitute part of an argument, because its very articulation is a reminder that any discussion of its subject matter was over and done with long ago" ; a poetical device used by writers like Alexander Theroux  and relatedly a visual-arts theme  and some works that straddle the line between written and visual arts ; a concept in US constitutional law about the value of the 10th Amendment (which seems to be a truism on the surface but which has had marked but perhaps shifting real-world policy impact)  (these may not be neutral sources, but make a politico-legal argument that could be given WP:DUE mention); as a category of institutionalized assumptions or rules of thumb in medicine which long gone unchallenged until recently ; as a subject in the philosophy of realism and anti-realism, pertaining to provability or verification of events or claims ; some humor-related meanings ; in software engineering, "broadly-applicable principles of software construction ... that ... may not apply in specific cases" but which may be testable with model-based assessment of methods ; and so on. These are all just from the first page of general Google search results on truism -wikipedia -wiki -blog -forum -dictionary, and I'm sure even better material could be found with Google Scholar or some other journal search. I thus lean keep on this, because it is very clear that more than just a dictionary entry can be written about the subject (and for that matter already has been, since our presently stub article already cover a philosophy usage pertaining to statements that are true but untestable for lack of contextual conditions or support, and the concept's relationship to humorous lapalissades). It's completely normal for Wikipedia to have articles, even short ones, on rhetorical devices, features of language, types (or failures) of reasoning, and classifiers of writing, and truism qualifies as all of those, in different usage senses, not all of which will be captured by even the most robust dictionary (which Wiktionary generally is not).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did in fact perform a BEFORE search, and of course the word "truism" crops up in a lot of sources. I just can't envisage what an encyclopedia article about truisms would look like based on the sources I've seen. None of the examples you provide are actually about truisms – they are about values, or the 10th Amendment, or medicine, or software engineering, etc. (Your second link, "Truth and Truism", comes closest, but despite the title I think it's really talking about self-evidence, which has its own article.) I don't see how these sources can be put together into an article that doesn't still boil down to a simple definition and a list of examples. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Self-evidence as an alternative to deletion. These are essentially the same concept, with different names in different contexts (rhetoric, epistemology). Cnilep (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge as per Cnilep. Does not seem to have enough content to justify a stand along article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
 * 1. https://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
 * The article states: "How do you argue a truism? Pretty much the same way as a tautology. You state that the case is a truism, explain how it is a truism, and why this means the case should be rejected. For example, to show that “genocide is bad” is a truism, you would argue: “Saying that genocide is bad is a truism. No one disagrees with this. The government case makes it virtually impossible to argue against their case. You should dismiss the government case as being a truism unworthy of debate.” Follow up your truism argument with your own definitions and explanations of why these definitions provide a fairer ground for debate. Be wary of making a “truism” argument. Much of the community does not think that a truism means a government should lose.  Usually, if a government runs a fairly common sense case, you can press for details about implementation so you can make arguments about the way in which they address or solve the problem they cite or make topicality arguments based on how their advocacy falls within the words of the resolution."
 * 2. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/801203/pdf
 * The article states: "A truism is not a genuine pro-position—it does not put forward or propound anything. As a statement, it cannot constitute part of an argument, because its very articulation is a reminder that any discussion of its subject matter was over and done with long ago. An anti-discursive instance of discourse, the concept of the truism casts doubt on the existence of non-truistic truth, yet it would appear that truth does little to push it away."
 * 3. https://www.itemonline.com/opinion/truisms-can-be-untrue/article_b995b4a1-5e58-5b6c-aaca-88374f06a4be.html
 * The article states: "A truism is a statement considered to be profound and accepted as truth. Like most people, I too accepted them as little pearls of wisdom and many found their way into my vocabulary. However, the wisdom of many truisms that have lived through countless generations has begun to lose the luster of truth."
 * 4. Harris. A Philosophical Treatise on the Nature and Constitution of Man (1876)
 * The article states: "The introduction of truisms and falsisms into our field of view brings us to the root of the difficulty about the truth and falsehood of statements, and enables us to dispose of it. For to regard a statement as true is merely to ignort the difference between it and a truism -- to regard it as equivalent to a truism ; and the conception of the truth of a statement is thus simply one as to the equivalence of two statements one of which is a truism."
 * There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Truism to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2023 (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.