Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Scotland (2nd nomination)

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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Scotland

AfDs for this article:

[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 WP:NOR, a core policy. With a few exceptions, the sources for the items on this list do not describe the items as "cultural icons of scotland", which leaves us with a mostly random list of famous things and people from Scotland. The previous AfD from 2014 made arguments that would be deemed inadmissible today. Sandstein 13:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 13:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does not fail WP:NOR. References in page heavily allude to the cultural significance of the various items. Sources need not describe them as "cultural icons". Items for which sources do not indicate cultural signicance should be deleted but are not reasons to delete the whole article.

Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The naming of something as a "cultural icon" is a subjective judgement, and Wikipedia should not assert opinions as fact. A list such as this might be sustainable with much tighter sourcing, but in my view, the sources used should not only describe the item in question as an "icon", but also tell us by whom it is considered iconic (and, ideally, why). For example, I think the source provided in this list for Oor Wullie is just about acceptable. However, I was unable to find similar sources to support the inclusion of haggis or sporran, so I fear that stricter sourcing requirements would leave the list very unbalanced. It seems that very few reliable sources have made an effort to pin down exactly what a "Scottish cultural icon" is, or what qualifies, and in the absence of such sources, this article will always be OR. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cultural icon is a highly subjective status, and the sourcing is absurdly and ludicrously terrible. The one for Balmoral Castle is an article titled "Royal aide is shot at Balmoral". For Sean Connery, it's "Sir Sean Connery signs book deal". Nothing about him being an icon, just a routine announcement. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any proper WP:LISTCRITERIA and I'm not sure any could be constructed; a collocation like "cultural icon" being applied to something (or someone, for that matter) is no basis for a list. TompaDompa (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not incredibly familiar with list policy, to be transparent, but WP:SALAT recommends against excessively broad lists; either way, such a list as this seems ridiculous on the face of it. Would we have an article called "list of cultural icons of France" or "list of cultural icons of Germany"? Or a list of words in Indonesian? I struggle to think so. CPORfan (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2022 (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.