Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appeal to loyalty


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to loyalty

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Purely a non-notable phrase. Fails WP:NOTE. Nothing else to say really. Delete. Dalejenkins | 01:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This one-sentence article is more suitable for a dictionary, not its own encyclopedia entry.Spring12 (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles like these are called stubs, and they are how many articles start out. You've shown no reason to think that this stub does not have just as much potential for expansion as any other. Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Any true Wikipedian would vote to delete this one line article. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You might care to note that it's a logical fallacy. Employing it in one's rationale does rather undermine the whole rationale.  This isn't a vote, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a phrase. It's the name of a type of fallacious argument.  Other fallacious arguments are arguments here at AFD not based upon Deletion policy, and not based upon looking for sources onesself beforehand.  Per policy, we don't delete stubs with potential for expansion.  We expand them.  And it's clear from this alone that there's scope for more on this subject.  And that's far from the only source documenting this subject.  There's this as well, for starters.  There are also social psychology sources, scholarly articles and books, that document this as a justification, rather than a fallacy.  There was not nothing else to say or do in your nomination, Dalejenkins.  You should have looked for sources. This is a stub with potential for expansion. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable logical fallacy, in scholarly use,  plenty material available to expand beyond a dicdef.  Baileypalblue (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-known logical fallacy, just as suitable for an article as, for instance, false dichotomy. Article can be expanded by including examples and documentation of how popular this particular fallacy is in political arguments. JulesH (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral While I totally agree that the topic is worth an article. I agree with the nominator too. This is nothing more than a definition. I wouldn't lose sleep over it if the article was deleted, but I would be equally happy to see it expanded. If someone wanted to write a full article on the topic, losing the stub wouldn't hurt their efforts. In fact it might spur someone to do the expansion rather than letting the stub sit unexpanded. - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not being the world's most courageous editor, I'm more likely to add material to an existing stub than to create an article from scratch, especially if I get that message that says "Notice: You are re-creating a page that was deleted" when I click on a redlink. I think my reaction is a common one.  I wouldn't recommend deleting the article if the objective is expansion.  Baileypalblue (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge and redirect with loyalty, also a stub in fairly obvious need of expansion. Mgm suggests that this is capable of expansion, and a Google Scholar search also suggests that this is so.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-known and oft-used fallacy. Just a dicdef right now, but plenty of material available to expand. (I may have a go if schedule permits). Arakunem Talk 16:57, 24 February 2009 (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.