Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 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". If you see a dubious or unreferenced entry tag it as needing a citation, or just be bold and delete it if you search and cannot find reliable sourcing for it. Edison (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among the Dreyfus affair, Brigitte Bardot, and the Alsace hamster. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not yet read the previous discussion. However, I challenge the reasoning that the article should be deleted because of the charmingly eclectic cultural preferences of French people. Anarchangel (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you find an entry in a list which you do not feel belongs, you can tag it as needing a reliable source identifying it as a cultural icon, or you can be bold and remove it. We do not require laser sharp objective definitions for list membership. The fact that reliable sources say something is a cultural icon of a country is sufficient. It is a red herring to argue that the lists say there are "encyclopedic connections between all the icons" when no such claim is made. They are just individually identified as cultural icons. When someone adds vanispamcruft items with no refs calling them "cultural icons" or equivalent, , anyone else is welcome to remove them. Edison (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "When no such claim is made"... then why compile a list? Each of these lists accomodates anyone and anything that has ever been called a "cultural icon" – a term which can be fairly described as a recentism with considerable promotional value and a controversial definition. The term is not uncommon to find, but it is not used purposefully enough in actual literature to be considered an encyclopedic topic. These lists will always be viewed as contests or rankings, and they will always be incomplete. Each source is specific to one particular entry and wholly unrelated to all the others: they don't add up to a convincing sum. I have never seen a broad survey of "'cultural icons' of France" (or any other country) that could be considered scholarly, and it's no accident that the sparse sourcing on these lists comes from fan websites, popular magazines and travel guides. Without a compelling reason to exist, they are WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections and attempts to stitch them together, however sincere, are ultimately WP:OR. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But, sadly, you are quite wrong and your arguments are not well conceived in this instance. Books, movies, tv shows, magazine articles and travel guides concur that numerous countries have numerous "cultural icons" known not only to everyone in the country but to educated persons worldwide. They are the things, persons, and places one thinks of when one thinks of the country. Your comment suggests that there would be neither agreement in France nor in other countries as what things characterize France, and that there would be no commonality in naming Notre Dame, Paris,the Louvre, the Left Bank, or the wine country. Please get it through your head that things cited to reliable sources are not original research. Edison (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mr. Admin, I'll go do that. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edison. A list of cultural icons of a country is encyclopedic, countless reliable sources exist and I believe that Edison's point more than addresses the concerns raised by the nom. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:20, 13 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) 17:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really resent your clear implication that I am not a "reasonable Wikipedian". You and Edison, as admins, should adhere to a higher standard of discourse. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not wish to jump on Bearian's Band wagon, then do not. I think reasonable Wikipedians would agree it would be counterproductive to ban rhetoric, as most are alert to it, and dabble in it from time to time. Anarchangel (talk) 21:54, 17 July 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, –Davey2010(talk) 12:47, 18 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.