Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overwhelming consensus


 * 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   redirect. As no case was made for a merger, I have deleted the article and re-created it as a redirect to Consensus decision-making. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Overwhelming consensus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is original research. Neither of the cited sources actually use the term overwhelming consensus edit: and I can't find any sources that describe it as a logical fallacy. They are both examples of it that the author has incorporated into the article. The only relevant google result that I found is this comment in a Media Matters piece (beginning "I've heard the term..."). Comments are not reliable sources. Other relevant sources are media talking about the overwhelming consensus about global warming (as opposed to the supposed logical fallacy that is the subject of this article).--Chaser (away) - talk 16:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The phrase "overwhelming consensus" is found several places in Wikipedia used as a logical fallacy argument and they refer to the sources quoted in this article. The intent was to link these fallacious arguments in the articles to this page.  AshforkAZ (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That means there is original research elsewhere in Wikipedia. It's not a good reason to base an entire article on that original research.--Chaser (away) - talk 21:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Consensus decision-making, as a content fork. There's no reason that we need a separate article on different kinds of consensus, or consensus with different adjectives preceding it.  We don't need articles on Borderline consensus or Weak consensus or No consensus or Unanimous consensus.  This can all be covered at Consensus decision-making.  Also, there is no evidence that this particular phrase is a neologism which is exclusive to the creationism debate, as this article currently implies.  Snotty Wong   confer 19:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Snottywong. —Tamfang (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article as currently written suggests that "overwhelming consensus" is an example of Argumentum ad populum, also known as the Bandwagon effect, but it offers no reliable secondary sources to this effect. Given both the lack of verifiability and the fork concerns, deletion or redirection seems appropriate. But if the redirection route is followed, is the proper target Consensus decision-making or Argumentum ad populum? I am more or less convinced by Snottywong's arguments for the former, but perhaps we should entertain arguments for the latter as well? Cnilep (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is important to note the difference between the fact that there can be an 'overwhelming consensus' on some topic and trying to use that 'overwhelming consensus' as an argumentum ad populum to coerce others to conform. AshforkAZ (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Important, perhaps; discussed in reliable secondary sources, not so much. See WP:But it's true! Cnilep (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is used (with variations such as overwhelming majority, overwhelmingly accepted) as argumentum ad populum in the following Wikipedia pages. _AshforkAZ (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Creation Science
 * Creation–evolution controversy
 * Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns
 * Intelligent design
 * Intelligent design movement


 * That may well be true, but you still need reliable sources saying that this concept constitutes a logical fallacy. Your instinct to create an article to explain something that needs explaining on many pages is the correct one. But you need reliable sources to back it up. Part of the issue here may have been my unclear nomination, so I've edited to hopefully clarify it.--Chaser (away) - talk 04:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect sounds like a good option to me. No one else here advocates deletion rather than simply redirecting it, although AshforkAZ seems to still want to keep it, so the AFD should stay open.--Chaser (away) - talk 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I just want to make sure I understand the main author perfectly clearly. The idea is that an "overwhelming consensus" is a fallacy because, after all, it could be the case that they are all wrong. That sounds plausible as a form of argument ad populum. But then the author wants to include the overwhelming consensus of scientists on the subject of evolution, and say it's a fallacy? I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense at all. Scientists go through a valid process to obtain their knowledge. That makes a consensus among them a valid reason to believe the truth of a claim. Would it be a fallacy to conclude that the sun will come up tomorrow based on the fact that it came up the day before, and the day before, and the day before because, after all, there could be an apocalypse? Dumb.Greg Bard (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While there is no doubt that there is 'overwhelming consensus' on evolution (and other topics), it is not valid logic to use that consensus as an argumentum ad populum to coerce someone to agree. A person should choose to accept a position based on evidence, not on what has the most votes. _AshforkAZ (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is trying to coerce anyone. However, an overwhelming consensus of scientists (who do rely entirely on evidence btw) should compel you to accept the position. That's not a fallacy at all. This is just another example of how religion turns people's brains into mush. What logical reason is there not to accept the claim of an overwhelming consensus of scientists?Greg Bard (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone who allows an "overwhelming consensus" to compel them to accept anything, even in science, is a fool. Science does not work that way.  Logical thinking does not work that way.  To compel = coercion.  Persuasion, based on logic, is completely different.  _AshforkAZ (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Take it outside, both of you. —Tamfang (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Gregbard, your point may have something to do with the absence of reliable sources to support the contentions made in this article.--Chaser (away) - talk 02:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed.Greg Bard (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2010 (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.