Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gish gallop

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 speedy keep. There is obviously no chance further discussion will result in any other outcome and will only be a time sink. (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 01:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gish gallop[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails to satisfy WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is an inflammatory term used by anti-theists and anti-creationists exclusively. It is a character assassination attempt on Dr. Duane Gish. Kanbei85 (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasingly alliterative term, in fairly wide use as can easily be checked by clicking on the links above, named after a notable exponent of the technique. A useful little article, which we should keep. Hunc (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of all terms in use, even if this were common, which is debatable. It is intrinsically a biased term, which makes it a violation of WP:NPOV, especially if it is not properly qualified in the text. It is not an uncontested fact to say that Duane Gish engaged in that behavior! Are you unable to tell subjective from objective?--Kanbei85 (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this is not a dictionary entry; "neutrality" does not mean avoiding controversial topics, but rather, writing about them in such a way that viewpoints are properly attributed to those who advance them. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not that neutrality means avoiding controversial topics. Where was that ever said here? This is an inherently-biased term used primarily by a particular group at the expense of another group they wish to disparage. It is also disparaging of Dr. Duane Gish, which should of course go without saying. There are other terms such as

Elephant Hurling which represent the same concept, but which are not represented on Wikipedia.--Kanbei85 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It is intrinsically a biased term, which makes it a violation of WP:NPOV". That's not what NPOV means. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll grant that the name itself does not automatically make it a violation of NPOV. However, I still think it fails WP:N, as it is a term largely known only to a certain special interest group of people, namely, anti-theists and anti-creationists, and is used as a mocking, derisive term against those they oppose. Similar terms exist like Elephant Hurling, which are not included on Wikipedia; so why should this be, either? --Kanbei85 (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, consider our article on the Chewbacca defense. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a topic of "special interest" is not a reason for exclusion from an encyclopedia. Nor does the fact that X is not mentioned mean that Y should be ignored. Nor is the claim that a phrase is "mocking" or "derisive". XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. Telephone hybrid is "a term largely known only to a certain special interest group of people", namely telephone engineers, but I doubt that Kanbei85 would want to propose it for deletion on those grounds. SpinningSpark 17:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kanbei85's arguments are not valid grounds for deletion. The article is not a dictionary definition, and if, as he claims on the article talk page, the article is biased, that should be discussed and (if valid) fixed.

As for notability, see these sources (search for "Gish Gallop" on each page):[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more [14] (which, like several of those posted just above, indicates the spread of the term outside the debunking of creationism). XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: even a cursory search establishes notability. --tronvillain (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguing that this is a character assassination is very odd. Gish's own article says, with sources, that he debated in exactly this way, and there are no countering opinions offered. SpinningSpark 17:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a dic def, and being offensive is not a valid rationale for deletion. Something something Category:Ethnic and religious slurs. GMG ^talk 18:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced stub, on a notable topic. Supposed bias was never a reason for deletion in Wikipedia. As for Duane Gish, he is more famous for his underhanded debate techniques than anything resembling science. "...during the debate, Gish attempted to prove that Shermer was indeed an atheist and therefore immoral, even though Shermer said he was not an atheist and was willing to accept the existence of a divine creator." Dimadick (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, for reasons already stated, and admonish the nominator for wasting the community's time. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2018 (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.