Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scotched English

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2023 October 11. The result of the deletion review was overturn to delete.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 redirect‎ to Scots Wikipedia#Controversy. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scotched English

[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)

~~As stated in a prior (invalid, due to recreation) PROD, this unreferenced article is a thinly veiled attack against the perpetrator of the Scots Wikipedia incident.~~ I can find no evidence that this is an actual term in use; the few matches for "Scotched English" or "In Scotched" in Google, Books, and Scholar are using the phrase in a context totally unrelated to language, English or Scots. This is borderline WP:G3 hoax or ~~WP:G10 attack page~~ territory, but given the numerous past contested attempts to remove the page via PROD, BLAR and RfD, AfD seemed more appropriate than unilaterally speedy deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Scotland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch, or rather cut back, to a DAB. A head note on Scots Wikipedia says 'Scotched English' redirects there, which it apparently did until recently, and which might be what some readers are looking for. User:Uanfala suggests in page history that the concept "is definitely a thing" but is not called 'Scotched English'; maybe they had something like Code-mixing, Pidgin, or Anglicisation (linguistics) in mind? None of these quite fit the term – which, as Rosguill's research suggests, doesn't have a single specific meaning – but all might be listed on a DAB. Cnilep (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_22#Scotched_English. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Rosguill: "this unreferenced article is a thinly veiled attack against the perpetrator of the Scots Wikipedia incident." This statement is false. The "perpetrator" only made their account in 2012, yet the "thinly veiled attack" was around in 2005. It may be that it's a neologism made by a scowiki editor (the enwiki page was previously deleted via PROD in 2009 after all) CiphriusKane (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I've struck those portions of the rationale. I don't think it affects the other arguments. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have deleted as nonsense, there is no sourcing and this appears to be OR. This is [1] the closest I can find. G1, maybe G3. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G1 is reserved for totally incomprehensible gibberish, not stuff someone made up but which makes sense grammatically. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whilst the WP:NONSENSE guideline defines the term as gibberish, this page is English-common nonsense in every other sense of the word. In fact, I honestly thought it was a hoax on Scots English. For policy, I'd go with a hard 'no' for WP:GNG, WP:UNSOURCED and WP:OR (and, frankly, just about everything else starting with [[WP:. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scots Wikipedia#Controversies: No sources, reads like an essay. The phononomeon is mentioned here, although not by name, so this is a {{R to subtopic}}. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 18:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personal essay with no sources provided. If sources can be found, I would also vote merge into Scots Wikipedia#Controversies. -- Primium (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally unencyclopedic, exactly what should not be here. If I thought it was in addition a joke, I'd be calling for sanctions against its creator. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2023 (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.