Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judgmental language

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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 22:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judgmental language

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I agree with User:Knucmo2 from 19 years ago that this is OR. Judgmental language is not standardly classified as a fallacy, and it would not be a form of red herring if it were. Patrick (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: This article was created by an IP in 2005 and has barely changed since. It only ever had one source, but this was removed in 2010 because the site went offline.

I checked three introductory textbooks on logical reasoning (all from academic presses in at least the third edition), and none of them include "judgmental language". The only thing that seems close is the appeal to emotion; however, the use of evaluative language in order to persuade your audience is often pure rhetoric with no argumentative structure at all (hence not even a fallacy). Further, evaluative/judgmental language can and often does appear in other forms of fallacious reasoning (e.g., ad hominem, begging the question) without distinguishing any of them in particular. Patrick (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the textbook search by the nominator and my own googling a bit to check if there were any sources. Seems like just using effective rhetoric, except the things you are trying to illustrate with rhetoric are lies. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.