Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indefinability Theory of Truth

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep — but I'll add a cleanup tag, and expect the interested parties below to do the cleaning up --Gareth Hughes 16:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinability Theory of Truth

Um... I honestly have no idea. I'm getting a slight whiff of OR, or possibly copyvio (although Google doesn't turn up anything for a few randomly-selected strings, it could be from a textbook). False alarm? DS 13:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• This article is non-neutral and unsourced. However, have a look at correspondence theory of truth, in particular its "see also" section and references. Research is needed to determine whether this is an accepted theory alongside the others. Uncle G 14:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • note that the link in the "see also" section was added by the author. ---DDerby-(talk) 20:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite Tarski's theorem certainly exists and the article is plausible (at least to a non-philospher). However the context that would make it encyclopedaic is missing. Maybe merge to Theories of Truth or some such? Dlyons493 Talk 14:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• I vote confusion. to be honest, I've not heard of this (and I'm the sort of person that should have). But, this article attributes such a view to Gottlob Frege. I will try to investigate this a little further. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • We await the results of your research (as does the article ☺). I haven't found anything in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Uncle G 19:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • correspondence theory of truth is in the standard dictionaries. This article seems to be related to Tarski's semantic theory of truth but I'm out of my depth here. Dlyons493 Talk 20:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not the correspondence theory that is at issue here, though. It was the indefinability theory that I searched SEP for. Uncle G 15:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I talked to my friend who knows more about this stuff than I do. The general feeling is that such a position exists, and I correctly attributed the view to Frege. It is not terribly well regarded, because the argument for it rest on a mistake, but nonetheless, it exists. I vote keep, but with a cleanup tag. (If this gets kept, I'll try to tell the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy about it so they can clean it up, I don't really know enough about Frege to do it myself)

. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This appears to be a legitimate topic in philosophy. It is poorly written as an encyclopedia article, however. It should have a history of the idea, including who originated it, when it originated, why it originated, what schools of thought are in opposition to it, etc. Deletion is too drastic. It does need cleaning up. I am not the person to do it, as I am also out of my depth here. (comment by Rohirok)
• Comment: if this turns out to be nonsense, delete the red link for the lowercase version of this on the truth article. -- Kjkolb 08:18, 16 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.