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


 * 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. Editors are reminded that lists are not all objective, and that referenced entries (like what is there now) are acceptable. What is a valid entry can be discussed on the individual talk pages. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

List of cultural icons of England

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:OR TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I also nominate the folowing related articles for deletion under similar rationale -
 * List of cultural icons of Wales
 * List of cultural icons of France
 * List of cultural icons of Germany
 * List of cultural icons of Italy
 * List of cultural icons of the Netherlands
 * List of cultural icons of Russia
 * List of cultural icons of Scotland


 * Can anyone please also nominate the other articles and link them all to the discussion here, so that a joint discussion may be able to decide on all of them? (I am not familiar with multiple nominations and so I am not sure how to do it) Thanks Done TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Lists doomed to be inherently subjective: one person's "cultural icon" is another's embarassment (Baked Beans, Bernard Buffet).TheLongTone (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - By George, hold on old chap - this "subjective" list contains 50 references - yeah, I know, the person who put them in hadn't heard of cite tags - so there's certainly some objectivity in there. They refer to articles from the BBC, the Guardian ... cultural icons themselves. Can we find more and better citations? Sure we can. British Postal Museum & Archive "Icons of England" - includes Big Ben, Cup of Tea, Cricket ... the list should sound familiar, because it's culturally shared and richly documented. Or try Culture24: ICONS of England - the Spitfire, the Red Telephone Box... or BBC News: New Icons of Englishness unveiled - guess what: Stonehenge, Cricket, Cup of tea, Routemaster Bus ... room for one more here? try Historic UK: Icons of England - you know what's coming: Cup of Tea, Routemaster Bus, Spitfire, Jerusalem, Stonehenge ... Notable? Of course it is. Is the list inclusion criterion clear? Yes - an icon's in if we can find "multiple, reliable sources" for a thing's being an icon of England. Will it take a while to look through the mass of sources? Yes, but there's no hurry. Keep.Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The question here is not whether or not we have reliable sources for inclusion of an item in the list. It is whether or not the list requires Original Research on the part of the editor, or judgement whether or not to add it. [I dont see how you would need to judge whether Obama lies in List of US presidents, but here its another matter altogether; even if both lists have reliable sources]
 * That is, unless you choose to directly the entire list copy from one of the sources, which will then go against the WP copyright policyTheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per TheLongTone. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * per an editor's subjective assertion that something is subjective, when the sources say it isn't? Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources are only giving their opinion. You may see Pussy Riot as a Russian icon, and I may not. These articles are not objective enough for an encyclopedia. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some things are pretty uncontroversial, like the Houses of Parliament or ghastly food (note that the snap of a roast dinner clearly features overdone meat, probably tougher than shoe leather) but others are more borderline: for instance, why The Haywain and not The Fighting Temeraire. Its the existence of a huge middle ground that make this article unworkable.TheLongTone (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that all the articles admit to impossibility of the lists being definitive by stating that they are lists of potential cultural icons.TheLongTone (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * These are not stupid objections. The plain solution is to require say 3 (or maybe 5) reliable sources for EACH icon, and thereby to exclude "potential" icons which I agree is unacceptable. The result would be to prune the list, drastically, which I suspect is what we all want. An icon is guaranteed to be found in multiple reliable sources. If not, it's not an icon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At the point of almost repeating myself, Nobody here claims that we cannot find reliable sources to support the London Bridge's claims to be a cultural icon of England. What we do say is that synthesising such a list by ourselves (than basing it on another sourced list) will be a breach of Wikipedia policies which say that we CANNOT do so. If you really need to have such a list, why not convert the least contentious ones to prose and add to Culture of England?? Nothing stops a prose article from stating what has been said. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 08:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 08:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 08:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No breach of policy (such as WP:SYNTH) is involved. All list articles &mdash; indeed all articles, period &mdash; involve collecting materials from different places; there is no other way of building any article. What is at issue is whether there can be clear criteria to delimit this list, and sufficient reliable sources to identify items that meet those criteria. Since the answer is a definite "yes" to both questions, the list may stand. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually because there a seven billion people on Earth, the answer to your first question is a definite "no". - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between which sources can generally be relied upon to get facts right and which sources' opinions carry weight. These lists rely on opinions, which are per se subjective.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are sufficient good, reliable sources in the case of England - I doubt that's true for the other nations. A single source may be an opinion, but firstly the opinion of the BBC or the Guardian (for example) is better than the opinion of a blogger, and secondly when 3 or 5 good, reliable sources agree then Wikipedia may reasonably assume that there is intersubjective agreement on the matter. Otherwise, every fact and theory no matter how well attested is just "subjective". WP:RS is our standard and we should stick to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although there may be clear criteria to delimit the lists, and sufficient RS, there's no clear criteria to delimit the list of lists. For example, are List of cultural icons of FYROM and List of cultural icons of North Korea valid articles? Ning-ning (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On this list: the reason given about other lists is nothing to do with this list at all, to keep or not.
 * On the other lists, the answer is that if there are sufficient sources on the FYR of Macedonia, as seems improbable, then there would be reason to keep. In the case of England, there are excellent sources, so the cases may well differ. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I note the list is for potential cultural icons; there's plenty on the list that I doubt will ever become actualised- Argos catalogues, Treasure Houses of Britain, Tiptree Jam. Maybe there's an excellent source for Argos catalogues being an icon; THB is a marketing organisation, Tiptree Jam? Are Duchy Originals on the list too? List of cultural icons found on a shelf in Waitrose. Ning-ning (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Argos catalogues have gone, along with Lunch (I ask you) and Andrex. Is Waitrose a cultural icon, btw?TheLongTone (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Rewritten) Rather than argue any more, I thought I'd try a better defined list. There are just 7 items that were quickly sourced; no doubt others can find a few more. Most of the sources in the old article failed to assert "cultural icon" status so they had to go, along with nearly all the unsourced entries, it was worse than it looked. See what you think.
 * (Closing Admin - please note that earlier !votes applied to the original listcruft article.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly agree that this is a much more sensible list (& list length), but am not sure as to whether including strictures on criteria for inclusion will be effective in preventing the list bloating to the previous absurd level. Nice to see G.G. Scott's telephone boxes btw: I think they were absent from the old article.TheLongTone (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better. Restricting the list to objects should cut down on bloat, though using Attenborough for an example confuses the issue. Big Ben the bell, and Big Ben the cultural icon- isn't the bell just a part of the whole icon (tune, tower, striking the hour)? Also, relying on three sources to mention the magic words " cultural icon" is going to bias the list towards modern-day cultural references. For example Bellarmine jugs, the tomb of Edward the Confessor, Ned Ludd are some old cultural icons, which perhaps won't have the term applied to them. How should the list be expanded? Searching for the term "cultural icon" wherever it's used, or testing whether something has been defined as one thrice? Ning-ning (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou. It's only a start, and of course everybody is free to make improvements. I mentioned Attenborough as he was there before but it turned out that independent sources for his iconic status were hard to be sure of, a very specific point: if it's too picky, let's drop it. On bloat, we just watch and revert (and if need be discuss or warn), now we have sharp criteria. On growth, however works for you. On Big Ben, believe it's actually the bell tho' everyone thinks it's the whole thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have refrained from voting so far but I remain unconvinced. Yes, Attenborough could qualify; the Greek film Attenberg is actually named after him and takes for granted that the audience recognise his oeuvre. There will be many other sources out there though many will be equally difficult to pin down. But how can we really qualify a list which has to work for all recorded history? Are we talking of cultural influence, tourist sites, well known people? John Locke or Thomas Paine might be said to have had great cultural influence but are they cultural icons? If not, why not? Asking whether people have used that exact term seems pretty unsatisfactory to me. It probably is not a term previous generations would have used, but they would have described the same thing in different ways. And why should the sources be confined to English? Arguably wide recognition in non-English speaking countries ought to count for more, not less. --AJHingston (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - complete OR bogus POV nonsense, cannot be reliably sourced, inherently OR, bogus. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - Is it natural and/or acceptable for Wikipedia articles and list to contain the criterion (and a proper explanation and justification) for inclusion in the article space? I have seen them as comments, but are they acceptable in the articles themselves? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question, and I was wondering about the right way to do it also. Articles are supposed, I believe, to indicate obliquely why they are notable, without using the word. To JoshuSasori, there are many published books with "Cultural Icon" in their title, so people out there certainly think the concept is notable. To AJHingston, whether the term could even have been explained to someone of Locke's generation I rather doubt - Locke would have thought the term irrational; and in the Middle Ages it would surely have been thought blasphemous. So I suspect it only makes sense to a more modern mind, say 20th century. Perhaps also each nation's icons are necessarily different, so separate lists may make more sense than attempting any more cosmic all-in-one definition. Just a thought. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * List of things tourists want to be photographed near when they visit England?TheLongTone (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Photogrpahing a cup of tea? Sorry but no. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)




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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep all. I think that we can all agree that cultural icon is a valid and notable topic.  In general, a list of elements that are part of a notable subject is valid if the individual entries can be shown to also be notable.  Each of the lists in question consist of elements that have articles, so the individual elements are themselves notable.  The point of contention in tne nomination is that putting together such a list is original research consisting of synthesis.  As multiple reliable sources can (and should) be used to determine incluson i the list, to that extent this is not original research as it is the opinion of tertiary soruces that are used to make this determination.  With respect to this being synthesis, there is not going to be 100% agreement from everybody in the world on whether an item is a cultiral icon.  As such, any such list that would attempt to follow the nominator's reasoning would be doomed to be named like "List of cultural icons of France as determined by the BBC" or some such.  It's not synthesis to list items together that are generally known as cultural icons by third party sources even if they aren't always tehexact same sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the English list because it has a real criterion and real sources. Hold off on the others to see if they can be handled similarly. They should not have been nominated together, because they are of different natures. Basing a list like this on sources is the only possible way to do it. The qualification of the list is indeed  subjective, which is why we cannot do it ourselves. ThWe could argue whether for the English list 3 sources or 2 are needed, and how specific they need to be,  but that can be decided but the concept of cultural icon is more than notable, more even than famous--it's a combination of  famous and of  being  famously distinctive and characteristic. I do not agree with Whpg--we cannot include everything notable in a country, or everything notable in a country that we here judge particularly important and characteristic. We have no business making such distinctions. We can appropriately however, decide on objective criteria for such distinctions. The non-English lists at present do not show that.  DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete The attempt to establish objective criteria for the List of cultural icons of England fails spectacularly because it's made by a user. The cut-off is necessarily arbitrary and the sourcing of the other pages is terrible. Delete them all, the country articles are sufficient. Hekerui (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: A search for ikoną kultury produces a number of hits for Barbie, Batman and Jesus Christ- the first a result of a Polish edition of "Barbie Culture" by Mary F. Rogers, which has been (mis)titled "Barbie as a Cultural Icon", the second from a review of a US book on Batman, the last a translated segment from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I think this shows the notion of cultural icon is somewhat Anglocentric. Another example is Norman Wisdom, claimed by some British writers to be an Albanian cultural icon- the only hit for ikonë kulturore is My Little Pony. The list I'm really looking forward to is Cultural icons of the Wahhabi. Ning-ning (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, defining a "cultural icon" is inherently subjective, and thus WP:OR. A list of cultural icons as designated by some external authority might be notable enough, but that is not what these lists appear to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs)
 * Delete: An inherently subjective list, even if sources are found for it. A List of big trees or List of nice paintings will always be doomed for deletion, even if some published source has compiled such a source before—what is a "cultural icon" for one person will be a national disgrace or bore for another, and no "official list" can change that. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The subconscious mind... I used TheLongTone's words almost exactly... I must have read this before... הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Hasirpad here now. There is no way we can remove the list of subjectiveness. Delete. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - well sourced, no original research. Everything is, of course, subjective, but the list(s) use unoriginal research; they merely repeated what other sources are telling us.  The subjective judgements are not those of Wikipedia's editors, so it does not violate WP:OR. Wily D  11:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This argument becomes recursive. What are the critia for deciding which sourcs are reliable?TheLongTone (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a fair question, and one at the heart of Wikipedia. Ultimately we can only go by what exists out there in the world, and by noticing what seems to be agreed and respected out there. Beyond that you're into the philosophy of knowledge - how do we know anything at all, etc. The point here is that multiple sources agree that the concept "cultural icon" exists, and they also agree on what constitute major icons, just as people agree quite well on what is a "table" when it's wooden, waist height, and has 4 legs, but less well when it's of a quirky and ingenious design. There are many books with "cultural icon" in their title, by the way. Here are some:

--- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.