Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No true Scotsman

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. &mdash; Xezbeth 07:27, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

No true Scotsman
It's an uncommon phrase with little or no encyclopedic value. Belongs in another wiki Barneygumble 21:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, important to keep. "No True Scotsman" is the best way to introduce the subject as it is about as politically correct and innocuous as you can get. Scotsmen don't really care about sugar on porridge.  Only when people understand the fallacy expressed in this way the can we move on to more controversial "no trues" such as "No true Christian supports abortion" and "Not true Muslim supports terrorism" --Mike Young 06:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, no true wikipedian would vote to delete this. Kappa 21:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think I understand the concept here and it may be encyclopedic, but is this really the best name for the article? --Xcali 21:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well "Scotman" seems to be the most common complement to "no true", and atheisim.about.com says there are no alternative names. Kappa 22:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay. Then keep it.  I wasn't sure if there was a more "official" name for this fallacy.  --Xcali 22:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.This is an important phrase. Plus, this article has existed since November 2001. Why delete it now? NSR 21:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons that have nothing to do with the age of the article. When an article was created is irrelevant to whether it should be deleted. Ben-w 22:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That is your POV. To many wikipedians the age of an article is an improtant factor especially an article from the very early days of Wikipedia. NSR 22:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that it's possible for an article which meets deletion criteria to be overlooked or not nominated for some time. In other words, if there's a compelling answer to the question "why delete it now" then the age of the article alone is a pretty weak defence. Ben-w 17:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant logical fallacy, quite a useful concept.--Pharos 22:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep No true Scotsman squats over his porridge and peas. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "What links here" references indicate that it is an important concept. Tiles 22:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep An important logical fallacy. --StoatBringer 23:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup. As a "not true scotsman" it should be invaluable as a guide as to how I should act.  :) Wikibofh 00:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No true Wikipedian would vote to delete this article. Keep.  -Sean Curtin 00:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep -- Great stuff, and Comment the name is fine - if there are alternatives, create redirects.  [[User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 00:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep O_O - gren 00:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not an article about a phrase. It's an article about a logical fallacy.  It could do with citing more than 1 source, especially since some of the material in the article seems hardly likely to have come from that source.  Keep. Uncle G 01:19, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
 * Keep. 3000 Google hits on exact phrase. Source of phrase cited. Interesting fallacy. Well-written explanation. Seems fine to me. That's not to say the article couldn't be improved, but what article couldn't? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, on the name, perhaps "No True Scotsman fallacy" or something along those lines would be better. --Tothebarricades 00:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I linked over from another page and found it to be a useful example for what I was thinking about that I might not have otherwise thought of. Other dictionaries & encyclopedias have similarly specific entries--it is a thing unto itself.  Reverendum 22:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Phendimetrazine is not exactly a common word either and none has suggested to delete its article on those grounds. Please explain how this article does have little or no encyclopaedic value--have you actually read it? --81.42.164.8 11:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Please do keep it - I came into it from a blog link and it's amusing and a clear introduction (Peter Nolan/dpnolan)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.