Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Style over substance 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Style over substance fallacy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is article is a fork, as the text itself notes that the various examples are based on other fallacies, such as the red herring or ad hominem. There is no evidence of verifiability due to the lack of sources. On a Google search, this Wiki article is the topmost hit, with all others being NN websites. We're not a compendium for original research; this article should never have happened. WaltCip (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If this were a commonly recognized fallacy, I would expect it to garner a fair number of Google Books hits. It only garners three, and two of those are to books which copied much of their content from Wikipedia under our free license. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable neologism. Handschuh-talk to me 07:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists "Style Over Substance" as one of its fallacies . However this fallacy seems to be a subtype of the ad hominem (which itself is a subtype of red herring). --Mark PEA (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, style over substance fallacy should be subtext for the ad hominem page. I don't think there's enough content here to warrant a separate article, though. --WaltCip (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:OR and WP:RS. South Bay (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR and the fact that it's a skimpy definition backed by five skimpy examples. ♠ The Ace of Spades  ♣ ♥ ♦   01:23, 6 January 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.