In this article, we will explore the fascinating world of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Countable fallacy and its impact on different areas of society. From its influence on art and culture to its relevance in science and technology,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Countable fallacy has left its mark on history and remains a topic of great interest today. We will analyze its evolution over time, from its origins to its current state, and examine how it has shaped the way we think and act. Through this comprehensive analysis, we hope to offer an enriching and insightful view on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Countable fallacy and its relevance in the modern world.
- 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. Sandstein 11:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Countable fallacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources, search for the term came up dry. It could be that the concept is known under another name, but as is, it looks like a WP:MADEUP WP:NEOLOGISM. Paradoctor (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a truism that I'm sure has an article in Wikipedia under some other name, but I'm equally sure that this is not a name by which it is known in reliable sources so a redirect is inappropriate. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Unable to find anything relevant going by the same title. MordeKyle (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- (reluctant) Delete - I tried. I really did. I was so sure that someone, somewhere out there, had used this term to describe this concept. I just can't find it. This article makes sense, it describes a thing that needs a term... and yet, it doesn't seem to be a term that is in use. As I cannot find any mention of the term, despite giving it a good solid try, I have to !vote delete. Sorry. Fieari (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - yeah, this idea exists, but I don't know a more common name for it either. Law of triviality (where you can't cope with very big problems and just focus on more trivial topics at a personal scale) is very similar. I remember it from Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise, where he notes that in baseball (hope I'm using the right terms) ranking batsmen is easy but defending players much harder. But he certainly didn't call it this. Blythwood (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect as cheap to McNamara fallacy (aka quantitative fallacy). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- So that's why I couldn't find it in the list, it was missing. Thanks, that really scratched an itch. :D
- A redirect would constitute WP:promotion of a neologism, though, and a user-invented one at that. See WP:RFD#DELETE #8. There are simply no sources that use the term. Paradoctor (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- How about with Template:R from incorrect name added to aid searching, since neither "McNamara" nor "quantitative" are obvious terms, and "countable+fallacy" is a reasonable search term? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Unlikely search term. Paradoctor (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2016 (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.