Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apex fallacy


 * 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. Consensus is that this is a non-notable neologism. Will userfy on request. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Apex fallacy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources don't fit criteria for a Wikipedia stub or article, also isn't an actual logical fallacy recognized in any sort of academia. Propose either the finding of better sources or deletion. Countered (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep If it wasn't a technical logical fallacy (it seemed like one to me, but I admit I don't know the intricacies here) that would only qualify for removing the category, not the entire article. There could be a more appropriate label for the idea, do you have a suggestion? The source in question is that multiple psychologists in the field have discussed an application of this concept, and it has been discussed in a major newspaper. Ranze (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of sources. This is discussed a bit at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy. The article creator would like this WP:userfied if it is deleted.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I think I forgot to ask it be userfied if this occurs, but that's a great idea. I believe this article will inevitably be made, and if it is not now, then I hope I can continue to better it on userspace until it is accepted. Ranze (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. 19:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobyEasox (talk • contribs)  — JacobyEasox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You did not address the rebuttals to the nomination which occurred prior to your nomination, however. Ranze (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This term is is in common use in quality pages on the web, political discussion and academic discourse. It is a variant of the Fallacy of Composition. Wikipedia records such variants. CSDarrow (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mind showing me these "quality pages on the web", or a source that claims it is a variant of the fallacy if composition? 97.90.153.202 (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC) — 97.90.153.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I am not your research assistant. CSDarrow (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You've claimed that research exists, yet you're unwilling to provide it for the article? Why are you even on wikipedia? Your word that it exists isn't enough of a reason to keep this article from being deleted, and quite frankly it seems like you don't have a valid reason at all, without evidence of this "research". 97.90.153.202 (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC) — 97.90.153.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * In addition to composition fallacy, which I will read up on thanks you you, I believe on further reading it may also involve selection bias. I am wondering if there are logical fallacies related to the use of selection bias which may also be relevant here. Ranze (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Selection Bias Would give that if most observed men are powerful people, then all men are powerful people. Fallacy of Composition gives if most powerful people are men, then men as a group are powerful; ie the group has inherited a property of its composition. There is a difference and the Apex Fallacy  is a form of the latter. CSDarrow (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a bunch of other relevant fallacies to the See Also section but Countered removed them even though it's clear they're related somehow even though you make a good argument for composition-fallacy being the most strongly related. That the article no longer even references composition fallacy shows it's now being censored. It's difficult to improve an article if someone attacking it is just going to default rollback everything built. Ranze (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm appalled that you would accuse me of censorship. I've "rolled back" the edits because none of the information presented has any sources cited when talking about logical fallacies. What was put into the article counts as original research, which violates No_original_research. I've added tags to reflect the fact that the only source this stub seems to have is a blog that calls itself a news paper, yet I see no proof that it really is a newspaper. All I've asked for is sources providing evidence that this "fallacy" exists in any meaningful form, in acadimia, or in written articles that can be used as secondary sources. So far no one has provided any of these citations, and until they do I maintain that this page needs to be deleted, as it isn't notable, nor supported by sources. Countered (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not require sources to be academic, read Reliable Sources. CSDarrow (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And I never said they had to be. So where are your sources for it being a logical fallacy? Where are your sources that aren't from shady web blogs? That's all I'm asking for here. Countered (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you actually know what a an Informal Fallacy is? This is self evidently one. In particular, self evidently a form of the Fallacy of Composition; ie a property of the whole is inferred form a property of a constituent part(s). The constituent part in this case being the apex. CSDarrow (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, "patriarchy" doesn't assume that all men are at the apex of society, but that most of those at the apex are men. So it seems like this is just a neologism that is a contradiction of a strawman argument. Not to mention that you still need to provide sources for that meaning, ones that aren't from personally run blogs, that have reputability. Until then, I don't think this page should exist. Countered (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Our own personal views on whether any example is correct or not is of no interest to Wikipedia, We rely on sourced material. The page now has some quality sources and should at least act as a stub for more contributions. The page should clearly stay. CSDarrow (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not a fallacy, and the sources provided show a clear political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubedweller12 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)  — Cubedweller12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The situational bias of sources is irrelevant if the article is not about that. The articles is simply about the concept of an Apex fallacy, it is not about selective applications of it. Circumstantial applications can be removed, if necessary, without dooming the article. Ranze (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not require that sources be unbiased. CSDarrow (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SANN well I'll be! Ranze (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Appeal for all the people arguing delete, while I still think it deserves its own article, if that is not the case, I would like to appeal that rather than deletion, this perhaps be redirected/merged with fallacy of composition which, upon reading on CSDarrow's suggestion, appears to be very similar to this. Discussion of "apex fallacy" label could continue on the fallacy of composition talkpage, and perhaps be mentioned in a section there, rather than utterly removing the content. Ranze (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. This is men's rights activist astroturfing. The guy above isn't posting examples of its usage because they're all on websites showcasing brutal misogyny and hateful ignorance, like A Voice for Men. ZeaLitY [  Talk  -  Activity  ]  15:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And what is your post showcasing? The Harvard Business Review by any measure is a reputable publication. CSDarrow (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting it be kept in the context of being a pseudoscientific MRA evo-psych fantasy as part of their misogynistic platform? In that case, I'm all for keeping it, since we'd be calling it what it is. Similar articles illustrate how phrenology and other ignorant ideas were used to fuel racial hatred, so I'd have no problem doing the same criticism for MRAs' bullshit ideas and hatred of women. ZeaLitY [  Talk  -  Activity  ]  18:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - just another unsourced neologism. If it ever catches on to the point of notability, then fine. But until then - nope, sorry - A l is o n  ❤ 01:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept has been used and discussed by a Senior Editor of the Harvard Business Review, (reprinted on Bloomberg.com), and discussed at length by a well known Academic in an interview. This concept is not unsourced and the term Apex Fallacy is commonly used on the web. CSDarrow (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. To the extent the term exists, it can be discussed as an argument used by anti-feminists in articles on the subject, since that appears to be the only place it's used. SnowFire (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Undecided- this seems to be an applied version of selection bias, cherry picking, and Fallacy of Composition and perhaps could be merged tho one of those. The article itself is a microstub with little content, but is about as well-sourced as a two-sentence microstub can be. And denounce Zeality's view as hateful bile unfounded in policy; seriously, that crap doesn't help. Reyk  YO!  00:52, 23 April 2013 (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.