Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argument from derision


 * 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. Redirected to appeal to ridicule, but no relevant info to merge. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Argument from derision

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

Zero sources, zero G-hits, zero evidence that this is a fallacy known by this name. Fails WP:V, WP:N. Granted, this might be a WP:HEY result, but I don't hold out high hopes.  Ravenswing  06:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Appeal to ridicule. Reyk  YO!  09:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect and possibly Merge to Appeal to ridicule. The example given may be regarded as POV-pushing by some people. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 12:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced and idiotic. WillOakland (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment – The article's author left this note on the article's talk page: Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 06:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi - I created the article. While I can cogently argue why it is certainly not "idiotic" (although I do appreciate the irony there), it is in fact unsourced and, given the existence of the appeal to ridicule page (I was unaware), superfluous.  I vote it be merged/redirected with the appeal to ridicule page as has been suggested.  I would, however, like to preserve my example concerning the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  This particular argument (FSM) was constantly invoked during debates in my undergraduate courses (not so much in graduate) -- I suppose owing to its trendy popularity -- and makes more advanced, mature agnostics/atheists like myself seem childish and unprofessional.  I understand that it has been lionized principally through Internet culture and I find it outrageous that more have not recognized the argument's fallaciousness.  So - by all means - merge the article, but if you can preserve the example, even if it is edited.Teddyvamp (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)teddyvamp
 * Comment Any mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being an example of appeal to ridicule should go into the article Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your stated rationale here makes your article a partial coatrack. No one needs or wants a religious debate in an article that is not about religion at all. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 23:30, 9 July 2008 (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.