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 incubate. The delete !voters make a stronger argument here but per mansford I'm going to exercise admin's discretion and move this to the incubator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Scottish Uruguayan

Scottish Uruguayan

[edit]

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

No evidence of wide use. NO sources. Definition is recursive. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No evidence of wide use." - Which other terms would you prefer then? The vaguer "British Uruguayan", or the completely inaccurate "Anglo-Uruguayan"? --MacRusgail (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. There are now "sources", but I am extremely wary of using online ones, since they have a short shelflife, and then someone comes along and removes them and claims the article is "unreferenced". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRusgail (talk • contribs)

Keep Uruguayans of Scottish origin are of note (there's even a Catalan article on the same). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment - "Scottish Xan/ish" is standard nomenclature e.g. Scottish American, Italian Australian, Slovenian Canadians.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granted this has nothing to do with whether the topic itself is notable or not, but ... this naming pattern is not a scholarly standard outside of the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Some cases use the opposite ordering: British Pakistanis (i.e. Pakistanis in the UK, not Britons in Pakistan), Malaysian Chinese, Burmese Indians.
Some cases use terms from foreign languages instead: Koryo-saram, Hindoestanen, Confederados, Dungan people.
And in some cases (like many of the articles in Category:Ethnic groups in Uruguay), there's no specific term at all used in the literature, so the Wikipedia article ends up with one of five or so different kinds of descriptive title: Portuguese people of Cape Verdean descent, Armenians in Syria, Japanese settlement in the Philippines, Vietnamese community in Senegal, British migration to Spain.

As Cordless Larry notes, the term "Scottish Uruguayans" does not appear to be used outside of Wikipedia; specifically, none of the sources you cited seem to use it, and I highly doubt any Spanish sources use analogous terms either. cab (call) 13:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 02:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the two sources in the article do not constitute significant coverage and may be unreliable (they look self-published to me). A search suggests that the term "Scottish Uruguayans" is not used outside of Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Most available material on this subject matter will be in the Spanish language, not English. If people do not like the term "Scottish Uruguayans", they should come up with a viable alternative.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do such Spanish-language sources exist, though? Perhaps if some were found then the significant coverage criteria would be met. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources covering this as an individual topic. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I hate to see this one get deleted, in that I believe that the article creator would be able to make more out of it. In addition, I think that the topic of immigration into Central and South America from the British Isles is under-represented. On the other hand, there's not much information (such as the number of persons who are of Scots descent, or the Scots-Irish, Scots who migrated first to Ulster and then onward-- in the U.S., it's been a large population). Sources may be available in Spanish, and Google translate does very well with Spanish, which might make it easier for MacRusgail to locate and read them. On the other hand, he or she, like the rest of us, does this during spare time and it's hard to perfect an article in a short time. Mandsford 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both sources given are dubious. It is stretching importance too far. Szzuk (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2011 (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.