Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relativist 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Relativist fallacy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

tagged since over two years, not a recognised fallacy. Tallard (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia fallacy. MLA (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A Google books search indicates numerous uses of the phrase. The article needs to be sourced and re-written to eliminate original research, but can be saved. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If kept it would need renaming as it's not a recognised fallacy. In that sense, the "phrase" (as you aptly named it, whether intentionally or not) is generally fallaciously used by religious dogmatics to undermine the validity of other viewpoints. How does one name an article to indicate the opposite, I am not sure.--Tallard (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: The following articles, and others, indicate is to me it is a phrase on which we need an article. Law, Stephen (2005) Thinking Tools: The Relativist Fallacy, Think: Philosophy for everyone 3: 57-58 (A journal of the the Royal Institute of Philosophy) and Tomass, Mark (1998) On the Relativist Fallacy of the Impossibility of Value Neutral Inquiry in Political Economy Volume 20, Issue 03, Journal of the History of Economic Thought (1998), 20: 279-298. Perhaps problems with the phrase, from the point of view of logicians, might be made more prominently in the article. Msrasnw (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Keep: A quick google search shows that the phrase is frequently used. Article clearly needs some work, but still keep. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article about a concept that appears important.  Needs editing, not deletion. Tchicken7 (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2011 (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.