Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per fas et nefas


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Per fas et nefas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:V and WP:NOT I haven't been in Afd more than twice in 11 years or so. I have no idea how to do this and won't join the debate for that reason. But here's the deal: this page is listed as a logical fallacy, but it doesn't seem to actually be a logical fallacy, and it doesn't seem to actually mean what WP says it means. It is a real Latin phrase, but it means something like "willing to use any means to win an argument". The rest of the stub says something like "denying or refuting only one possible cause of a phenomenon". Yes, that would be one example of Per fas et nefas, but that's not the full meaning of the term. I can't find WP:RS that closely links the term and the "logical fallacy" our article describes... I did find that example used here, but again it is just discussing an example of this behavior... so if it is not a logical fallacy and only a phrase that means "by any means", then if we remove the bit about logical fallacies and "denying only one argument", then all we have left is a bare definition. That leads me to WP:NOT because WP is not a dictionary. You folks go ahead and do what's best; I think it should be outright deleted. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 15.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 15:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. All I can find (besides WP mirrors) are a few specialty dictionary entries.  This certainly doesn't seem to be notable as any kind of fallacy.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is encyclopaedia article writing by Chinese whispers and back-translation. This article is a translation of the Polish Wikipedia article pl:per fas et nefas, which in turn comes from a misunderstanding of Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Being Right, which does not (if one actually reads it) define this as a concept, but rather defines "Controversial Dialectic"/"Eristical Dialectic", which Schopenhauer says to be the same thing as Eristic but with a less harsh name.  This misunderstanding is actually explicit on the Portugeuse Wikipedia at pt:per fas et nefas.  The sentence where this misunderstanding comes from quite clearly begins with the words "Controversial Dialectic is" and proceeds to tell the reader what Schopenhauer's Controversial Dialectic is.  Uncle G (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. All hail Uncle G. Mccapra (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G. And how do you get to know this stuff? SpinningSpark 23:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no magic involved. I started with . &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, so a redirect to Wikipedia editor stuffups? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and Uncle G.___CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk   13:26, 22 June 2019 (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.