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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Appeal to tradition

Appeal to tradition (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very poorly cited and not at all neutral

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Logic and Conservatism. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• If this is to stay, it needs to be rewritten and better sourced, and discuss the benefits of tradition as well as the negatives. This currently lacks any depth, logic alone is nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderkowal ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - the article is about the logical fallacy. There is a separate article for the broader subject of tradition. Citations, etc. are a WP:SOFIXIT/ WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  It qualifies tradition from only one POV Alexanderkowal ( talk) 16:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  It's not the article about tradition. That's tradition. It's about a logical fallacy appealing to tradition. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  You have just ignored what I said Alexanderkowal ( talk) 17:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep if article can be rewritten to sound more neutral and objective. Would also help to add more sources. — Mjks28 ( talk) 00:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not a convincing nomination, no policy cited and irrelevant personal opinions such as "logic alone is nothing". I don't see any problems with it not being "neutral". Geschichte ( talk) 04:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  It is a single POV, arguably an uncommon one. Obviously when I say neutral I’m referring to WP:NPOV Alexanderkowal ( talk) 16:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  What I should've said is that logic alone without rational appreciation for the content is at best superficial and vain, at worst very destructive Alexanderkowal ( talk) 17:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• You have now presented the worst arguments I have ever seen in an Articles for Deletion discussion. Please be more serious in the future, as what you are currently engaging in is approaching disruptive editing. Geschichte ( talk) 10:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  What I should’ve done is apply a POV tag and comment on what needs to be improved Alexanderkowal ( talk) 11:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I was just frustrated at the topics relation to a wider problem in European societies, we lost a lot of our culture and tradition when we industrialised and this topic attempts to destroy the few remnants Alexanderkowal ( talk) 11:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I think you have misunderstood both the purposes of AfD and the subject of the article you nominated here. -- asilvering ( talk) 03:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I was wrong to go via afd, I should’ve used a tag and the talk page. The subject implies that following tradition is illogical, and I think that violates NPOV. I think there needs to be a section on the logic or rationale of tradition, whilst also explaining where this fallacy is applicable. Whether following tradition os logical depends on how each person values tradition and the goals they have. (I honestly don’t think it’s a fallacy, it’s just people’s reasoning. Labelling it a fallacy is just a way to dismiss people’s genuine concerns, but obv we have to go w RSs) Kowal2701 ( talk) 09:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep because the ways of our forefathers and our forefathers forrfathers would have been to keep this. See what I did there? Hyperbolick ( talk) 06:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Didn’t really make sense, I don’t think our forefathers would’ve kept this article Alexanderkowal ( talk) 11:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Forefathers would've fixed it. They were fixers of fixtures. Hyperbolick ( talk) 08:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  This is more to draw people’s attention to the article because I can only write on the positives and negatives of tradition Alexanderkowal ( talk) 10:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Necessary article in Wikipedia has notable sources -- User.shanie6 ( talk) 01:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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.