RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Chinese robber fallacy

Chinese robber fallacy | Result: Deleted

Chinese robber fallacy (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Your fourth Anerisism of the day. Neologism from the LessWrong-sphere with no currency outside it; there may be a fallacy something like this, but this won't be its proper name and this text won't be a good article on it. Part of Aneris's SSC fan club membership application - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

   You missed a great "Anerysm" pun there |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I like... being punched in the face.} 02:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

2. Quite similar to Overgeneralization, isn't it? Dendlai (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
3. I've never been convinced this needed its own term. If it's a product of LW NIH mindset, that explains it. Doesn't help that the examples are laughable. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 21:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
4. I didn't know there was a conflict of "spheres". I actually hope you delete. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

   The only conflict is that LW/Scott's habit of neologism is pretty much always terrible - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

5. Maybe we could have an article collecting all these "obscure new fallacies Some Guys use," but not a separate article for each.---Mona- (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

   Scott Alexander. Someone suggested an LW Jargon Translator on to do, but nobody who could write it wants to - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

6. Axe it. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep

1. Nothing wrong with this page. Who says we can't we document (on-mission) neologisms? "Anerisism" or "from the LessWrong-sphere" are not valid arguments for chucking content people spent their free time writing (although the content could possibly be copied/merged in another page; not sure which from the top of my head, though). Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Anything useful can go to overgeneralization. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

   It's not an overgeneralization. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)