Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argument from fallacy

Argument from fallacy

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

The article is clearly not notable. The original creator wrote: 'This fallacy may be known as something else. I just added it because I have heard it used so many times in discussion groups etc.' There are no academic sources. The Fallacy Files gives a fake citation (the index is available online). SquaredCircle (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Delete Redirecting to Denying the antecedent is probably just confusing. Favonian (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject_Logic. I notice they have a zoo of requested fallacy articles but I am not sure if this is, or could be, one of them. Please also note that the content is fundamentally different from Denying the antecedent. --Pgallert (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to fallacy at least as an interim solution. The point of the article seems to be to assert that it is a fallacy to conclude that a fallacious argument inevitably leads to a false conclusion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the "Fallacy fallacy" is a notable fallacy as the original author says. However, it does not really matter what any original creator writes. Have you patroled the new articles? Some are quite raw. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's been around since 2005. There are no academic sources. This was something dreamed up in discussion groups. Google searches bring up only mirrors of this article. Which criteria are you using to establish that this is a notable fallacy? SquaredCircle (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~Delete~~ ~~Hug it and Call it "George"~~ Whatever -- it's possibly the most commonly committed fallacy on the Internet. Dzlk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - So, this is kind of cool. I can't find any scholarly sources or references to this fallacy, so it was probably originally a non-notable neologism. However, the depth and extent of forum arguments, blogs, and educational courses directly quoting the Wikipedia text across google - and these are manual citations, not mirrors or bot-copies - suggests that the Wikipedia article, deservedly or otherwise, has popularised this term and made it notable. It's a case of an article generating notability for itself; shouldn't have been allowed to happen, but it has, and now the article should be kept. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no depth or extent of sources on this topic. It's entirely original research. The majority of hits on Google are mirrors. You're incorrect, friend. SquaredCircle (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think your claim that it is original research, and "clearly" not notable is the only original research I see. Google comes up with over 100,000 hits on both "Fallacy fallacy" and "Argumentum ad logicam". A cursory effort would have sufficed to see this. It is also included in the Fallacy Files which is a sufficiently RS as well. I have also added another source as well. What exactly makes your belief so "clear" ? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think SquaredCircle might be referring to the fact that almost all the Ghits use the exact same wording as the Wikipedia article, which suggests that either they're sourcing Wikipedia, or the article text is a copyright violation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a different way of explaining an Association fallacy (or perhaps some other form of red herring: "an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue"). Seems to me that if A (a false premise) is associated with B, it is guilt by association to assume that B is also false. T34CH (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - used by at least by a few scholarly works. This is an easy rescue. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Ooooh, you almost had me change my mind, but it looks like all those sources are popping up because they contain the phrase "to separate argument from fallacy..." For example: "There can be no separation of argument from fallacy by the clear, simple rules of pure, unsophisticated logic, if we deal in such loose and general declamations." (looks quite the opposed of what this article is about). The rest are all about the desirable traits of a lawyer: "... if he can reason with precision, and separate argument from fallacy, by the clear simple rules of unsophisticated logic...". T34CH (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Scholar and Google Book search show enough results. Some lawyers use this term a lot it seems. Article is well done, showing some good examples that very clearly explained the concept. Dream Focus 04:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply You gotta read the sources! The scholar ones have NOTHING to do with this term... just happen to be the same words in the same order... nothing to do with this article (bolded because I already pointed that out above). Also, the discussion above indicates that web searches get only non-RS sources (mostly WP mirrors). If you found something different, please tell us so I can change my vote. T34CH (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fallacy is discussed by logicians, though not necessarily under that name. I have added a reference to a book published by Springer (which publishes textbooks and academic works) and tightened up the wording a bit. -moritheil^Talk 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets basic sourcing requirements. The logic itself is valid. --Whoosit (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find a source that defines this fallacy. Most of the Google returns say "separate argument from fallacy" or the like; in other words, this is a combination of words that happens to occur while talking about arguments. It is not, however, a known, capital-F Fallacy. Abductive (reasoning) 01:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the source in the article? It appears that logicians do not call it by this name, but it is nevertheless a known fallacy. Renaming the article may be appropriate. -moritheil^Talk 03:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]