Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Poland[edit]

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

The inclusion criteria for this list is wired. Being a "cultural icon" has no precise definition. There may be sources which call anybody a "cultural icon". And not just people; books, paintings, monuments and other objects may be as well called "cultural icons". If we make a list of every person and object whom someone somewhere called a "cultural icon", what is the purpose of that list? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Cultural icon" is just too darned vague to make a reasonable criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep We have an article cultural icon. We have things called cultural icons in reliable sources. Finally, we have a whole category full of lists of cultural icons. Looking at all that, I started a well-referenced article. And I must insist I started mine in much better way than the rest of the lists. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re: the purpose of the list: you spelled it: a list of every item someone called "cultuiral icon", with a small, nearly unnoticeable correction: bearing in mind wikipedia rules, this "someone must be a reliable source, i.e., a source with sufficient expertise to reasonably declare that someone or thing does represent Poland. 19:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs)
Relevant past AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of England, which was a group nomination of eight such lists (not including this one) on the same rationale as here. All were kept. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ugh. It's fun, but very ORish. Even if we limit ourselves to things called a cultural icon by a reliable source... it's probably going to be big, and difficult to maintain. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply <he-he>. On the contrary, quick google search shows that unlike English, Poles don't have a tendency to abuse the term 'kulturalna ikona/ikona kulturalna'. Therefore I had to expand the definition of the list in the lede including the concept "symbol of Poland". Even with these two defs after spending one hour I could find refs only for this short list. And I am lazy to further expand it :-), although I can name much more Polish "cultural icons" (along the lines of the English) right off my head. 23:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs)
Keep We have similar lists for other countries, e.g. List of cultural icons of Scotland. The general concept is well-established and Poland is quite a notable case of nation-building by such means. Andrew (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It doesn't matter if other stuff exists; I would prefer to see all the "Lists of cultural icons" deleted as OR frivolities. They will always have the appearance of a contest or ranking, and they will always be incomplete. The entries would be better presented as prose in the corresponding articles of Category:Culture by nationality if they're actually that important. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that the other "iconic" articles are OR frivolities, this AfD is about a particular article. I specifically started it as 100% referenced, therefore IMO your annoyance with OR is not applicable here. We have numerous inherently incomplete ORish lists, even List of physicists is one. Yes, 'other stuff exists' does not matter, but "IDONTLIKEIT" does not matter either. Please indicate which wikipedia guidelines are violated, in your opinion. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your efforts, here and elsewhere, to build substantive referenced articles, but I do believe here you are chasing a chimera. If I must point to guidelines to validate my vote, I'll use WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE because the article's premise is not a valid one – not for an encyclopedia, anyway. The only common thread in the entries is that someone somewhere used the less-than-specific term "cultural icon" to describe them. Even with every entry having a citation, the article is ultimately no less OR than any of the other lists. Each source is specific to one particular entry and wholly unrelated to all the others. I don't believe they add up to a convincing sum. And I don't think they ever will: I've never seen a broad survey of "cultural icons of Poland" (or any other country) that was even halfway scholarly, and I'm not sure that any exist. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is inapplicable to lists (no content to be OR). Neither is INDISCRI (did you look into it lately?) Here an applicable guideline is WP:LISTS & its spawns. However your last argument (no special scholar discussion of cultural icons of Poland) does seem convincing. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. No logical paramaters for inclusion or exclusion, ergo entirely subjective original content. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such lists by country are highly encyclopedic, if reliable sources exist which say "X, Y, and Z" are cultural icons of Country A". Edison (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What the hell did the nominator intend to communicate when he said "The inclusion criteria for this list is wired." What kind of wire was used? Edison (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My qiuck geuss is that it is a tyop and supposed to mean "weird". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High-quality sources exist and the topic is notable and encyclopedic. Yes, the article is somewhat flawed. However, this is a problem that can be fixed by editing, so deletion is not necessary. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I challenge the notion that there are sources which call everyone and everything a "cultural Icon." To the contrary, travel guides and books about a country's cultural heritage generally have largely overlapping lists of cultural icons, meaning things from a country which are known worldwide. That said, every such article will gain unreferenced vanispamcruft additions no sources would call cultural icons. Deletion is not an appropriate substitute for the normal editing process. Edison (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think reasonable Wikipedians would agree that such articles or lists for larger nation-states probably are notable, so such articles on France, Poland, and Russia would be notable. I'm not sure about smaller states. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (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.