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. postdlf (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to psychology

[edit]

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

This has no refs and a google search comes up with nothing. It doesn't appear to be a proper fallacy, just a type of ad hominem with a shiny name that someone made up. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 20:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be the creator's own philosophy; it appears that the term is an informal fallacy in itself. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search for this term appearing in textbooks and other discussions of topics in logic; however, it seems to appear incidentally, not as a formal fallacy itself (see [1], [2], [3], [4]). As it seems unlikely to be a formalized term, it can have no significant coverage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:32, 22 July 2013 (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.