Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Scots


 * 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.  — fetch ·  comms   22:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional Scots

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Indiscriminate list, there are thousands of Scots appearing in books, films, TV etc etc. and I can't see this becoming a useful page. Category:Fictional Scottish people is a more suitable method of collecting such people. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  —Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, per lack of WP:NOTE of the concept, per WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT. Nom is right that categories also always better than such lists. Verbal chat  12:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just commenting to note that although the article has changed, it still has all the same problems and should still be deleted. Verbal chat  11:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Category more viable.  --Deskford (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The relevant guideline, WP:CLS, tells us that there is no preference for categories over lists as they each have their good points and so complement each other. Size is not a significant issue because Wikipedia is not paper.  The list is nowhere near the size of our larger lists such as List of minor planets which, with its numerous sublists, has about 250000 entries.  Furthermore, the list before us here contains good sources which reference the notable topic of Scots in fiction.  Provision of such sources is one of the advantages which lists have over categories and so our core policy of verification is better served.  Removal of sourced information is not our editing policy and the nomination is purely negative, contrary to this policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO. We've had AFD debates on the List of fictional New Zealanders and List of fictional Armenians, both which resulted in a strong consensus to delete (links are to the debates). This is clearly a pointy creation in an attempt to legitimise your opinion on the matter. This isn't a useful navigational list, and could be adequately replaced by a category.Claritas § 13:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * List of fictional Jews seems to be doing fine at AFD - heading for a snow keep. I have not looked into Armenians or Kiwis - it might be that some national stereotypes work better in fiction than others.  The Scots seem highly distinctive in this respect and the lack of a corresponding list seemed a significant omission.  Characters such as Dr. Finlay are national treasures and merit good attention.  Providing an index to our articles of this sort is my point and it seems a good one.  Lists are entirely legitimate for this purpose and are well-supported by practise and policy.  Your attempt to suggest otherwise is counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference here seems to be that being Jewish is an ethnicity, a religion and a nationality, whereas being Scottish is just a nationality, and there's less coverage of Scots in fiction than Jews in fiction. Claritas § 13:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a nationality!? You are suggesting that the Jews are the chosen people and so all other nations are unimportant?  Anyway, getting back to actual policy, please note that WP:NOTDIR is irrelevant as that is concerned with commercial directories not Wikipedia lists.  WP:SALAT explicitly supports lists of this sort with its specific examples such as List of Albanians and its guidance that lists which are too general in scope should be split into sections or sublists.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Claritas, your remarks strike me as absurd. Can you provide any evidence for your assertion that there is "less coverage of Scots in fiction than Jews in fiction." Ben   Mac  Dui  14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I simply feel that the Jewish cultural/religious/national identity is by its very nature stronger than the Scottish national identity. Such matters as the Wandering Jew, the portrayal of Jews in Wagner's operas and in the New testament, warrant independent encyclopaedic attention, whereas there are arguably few such entities concerning Scottish fiction. Perhaps a weak argument, but not absurd. Claritas §  11:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the English-speaking world at least there are numerous well-kent stereotypes of Scots- the engineer, kailyard Hielander, kilted berserker etc. The total numbers of populations involved are of a similar order and the differences strike me as being less obvious than the similarities. Ben   Mac  Dui  11:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're just not hearing the consensus concerning the application of WP:NOTDIR - it applies to any sort of directory, not purely "commercial ones". Claritas § 14:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The meaning of our policies is ascertained by reading them. In this case, the relevant section is directed at "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." and the accompanying text clearly indicates the commercial focus of this policy which is directed at things like Yellow Pages.  This is obviously not a general prohibition of navigational lists which are considered a different sort of object here, explicitly governed by different policies.  Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of Lists and so your attempt to extend an irrelevant policy to them is obviously not our consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR, which clearly applies to more than lists about commercial products. The meaning of WP:NOTDIR can indeed be ascertained by reading it, which some people have obviously not done, or done in an overly selective manner.  Specifically, I'm referring to items 1 and 6 of WP:NOTDIR:

This article clearly fits item 1, in that it is a list of loosely associated fictional people, who are clearly not famous primarily because they are Scots. If they are notable, they are because of their inclusion in a popular fictional book. This article also clearly fits item 6, because the intersection of fictional people and Scottish people cannot be shown to be a culturally significant phenomenon. Snotty Wong  spill the beans 19:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This classification is demonstrated to be culturally significant by the references provided as a sample of the independent coverage of Scottish people in fiction. We have to divide our lists and articles in some way to fit within the constraints of WP:SIZE.  The Scottishness of the characters listed is typically a primary quality of the character.  This directory nonsense doesn't stop having a List of Scots and this article is a natural companion to that which would otherwise have to be placed with in it, per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * List of Scots doesn't fall under WP:NOTDIR because it is not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Once you start trying to break down that list into smaller and smaller lists of different categories of Scots, you run the risk of violating WP:NOTDIR if that categorization cannot be shown to be notable.  In this case, it is not notable.   Snotty Wong   spout 19:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is well established by the sources already provided and it's easy to find other examples such as this. Your assertion is therefore false.  Furthermre breakdown by nationality is common place in our lists such as List of American authors, List of American poets, List of American philosophers, List of American journalists and on and on and on.  How many thousand examples would you like?  Colonel Warden (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that source is terrible and proves nothing. Next thing you know, you'll be citing that source for your next masterpiece: List of fictional Scots that get women wet.    Snotty Wong   confabulate 15:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Scotsman is a reputable journal which has been published for nearly 200 years. It is a reliable source; your unsupported opinion is not. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   squeal 19:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for Rescue by User:Colonel Warden in seeking assistance with its improvement. 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference better and add context. The nominator's reading of WP:NOTDIR would preclude any list from being formed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're incorrect. I'm fine with List of US Presidents or even List of Digimon, because these have strict inclusion criteria and can reach a level of completion. Digimon and US Presidents are strongly linked together. What's in violation of WP:NOTDIR are lists where the members have only a superficial or arbitrary connection, or are cross-categorizations, such as this. Claritas § 22:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Precedent seems to have established that List of fictional Fooians type lists are not appropriate on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of ones where Fooians in fiction can be shown to be an encyclopedic topic. This is in accord with our policies on verifiability and original research, and guidelines on notability and stand-alone lists. Without any indication that Scots in fiction is an encyclopedic topic, this list can only ever be an non-encyclopedic cross categorization: ie. an intersection of things with attribute A and things with unrelated attribute B. Reyk  YO!  00:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems inconceivable to me that the topic of fictional Scotsmen has not been addressed at the meta-level. Colonel Warden, can you find some sources? Abductive  (reasoning) 08:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see List of fictional Scots for numerous good sources which have been added since the start of this discussion. As the article has been significantly improved, the opinions above are obsolete.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, no they're not. All you've done is shift the policy violation from WP:V to WP:SYNTH. Reyk  YO!  01:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are because you have just admitted that your basis of criticism and the relevant policies is now different. This is not a vote and so, for contributions to be valid, they must be based upon reasoned argument.  As for WP:SYNTH, this is the drawing of a conclusion from different sources that the sources did not make.  This is not done here - there is no general conclusion or thesis.  If you disagree, please state clearly what this synthetic conclusion is so that the list may be updated to remove it.  Without clear substantiation of this sort, the argument is empty hand-waving.  Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization per WP:NOTDIR. A category would work fine.  Ben   Mac  Dui  14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A culturally notable topic as required by the guideline and as shown by the following. A book entitled "Scotland as we know it: representations of national identity in literature" . Some excerpts from other books/articles: "The question of the role of schemata in Scottish literature is a pertinent one, particularly when the expectations of Scottish characters, and their regressive or progessive qualities, have long fueled a heated debate (cf McArthur 1983a..." ; "Before the 1750s, Scottish characters had only appeared in English drama in a very miscelllaneous fashion...In the second half of the century, all this changed. Two stock Scottish characters appeared.", "A more fruitful stereotype, one that has yielded several high quality books, films and plays, could be called the Hardman. This male character type has been a recurrent feature of some of the most powerful Scottish art...".  From the intro to "The mighty Scot: nation, gender, and the nineteenth-century mystique of Scottish masculinity": "As this study of nineteenth-century cultural representations of Scotland shows, stories and counterstories about Scottish masculinity..." . Most of the list entries now have a ref and some context, nice, contexts are a benefit that lists offer and categories can't. Novickas (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is not simply whether Scottish people in fiction is a notable topic, but whether this is a cross-categorization on a par with List of fictional New Zealanders. I'm pretty confident that both Scots in fiction and New Zealanders in fiction would be acceptable articles, but Wikipedia is not just one big list. We don't have lists unless the serve a purpose which categories cannot do, and the nationality connection is actually fairly arbitrary. CW's statement that James Bond is Scottish illustrates the fact that this list is not going to provide any useful coverage of the portrayal of Scottish people in fiction (i.e. - portrayal of individuals as Scottish), so we might as well scrap this list (which was a pointy creation) and write an article on the topic. Claritas § 19:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Attempting to address your points in sequence. 1. The issue of its cultural notability was raised above. I think it's been addressed and the book links show that an article could be written about it. But does such an article need to be created before the list is, and would its creation render the list unnecessary? I don't see that stated as an imperative in the various guidelines. Correct me if I'm wrong. We have a Brain tumor article along with a List of brain tumor patients. 2. Re "We don't have lists unless they serve a purpose that categories can't do" - Lists do serves purposes that categories can't, adding contexts is one such list purpose per Categories, lists, and navigation templates, there are quite a few others Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates. And the entries here do have contexts now. 3. Re "CW's statement that James Bond is Scottish illustrates the fact that this list is not going to provide any useful coverage of the portrayal of Scottish people..." I disagree, because I see many book results for "James Bond Scottish identity" and one ref is currently present, which should suffice in a list, further development can and should go into the article itself, one good ref will do here. 4. "the nationality connection is actually fairly arbitrary"  - I don't see this and  I don't think we should go into discussions of whether these were 'real Scots' - what matters is whether a reliable source describes a fictional character as a Scot. 5. Re "it was a WP:POINTy creation", this is a strong charge that I don't see as supportable here, given the effort that's gone into it, including expansion and referencing, and the serious responses. I see POINT as applying to edits/articles that are easily identifiable as satiric, sarcastic, attacking, hoaxy, or clearly against current consensus, none of which apply here. Novickas (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. I can see the argument for fictional Jews being an encyclopaedic cross-categorisation - the influence of Shylock and Fagin has clearly reverberated through society to influence how people came to see Jews. And you can't really describe them as being part of Jewish literature - quite the opposite! But the Jews are something of a special case. It's hard to argue that James Bond has had the same infuence on perceptions of Scottishness (or Swissness for that matter). In fact you could probably say that the main influence on such perceptions has been the treatment by artists of "real" Scots  such as Wallace, Macbeth and the Young Pretender. And I'd argue that they have no place in a list of fictional Scots, because they really did exist. So I wouldn't say it is a totally non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation, but at best it's a very weakly encyclopaedic cross-categorisation - and that should be set against the facts that this list is very open-ended, a bit of a nightmare to maintain, and the function is already served by the category. There are also issues with defining "Scotland", particularly when you go back to Macbeth, a Pict who was brought up in an independent mormaerdom of Moray before seizing control of the "foreign" kingdom of Alba. Even then, he had tenuous control of the Borders and had the Highlands occupied by the Norse. I'd also suggest that assuming TV/film characters are Scottish based solely on their accent is tantamount to WP:OR unless they self-identify as Scots or the cameras show us their birth certificates! Le Deluge (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re a nightmare to maintain - most WP articles are. :( But List of brain tumor patients, which is featured, contains the hatnote "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries." We can apply the same standard here. Novickas (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "List of brain tumor patients" is a slightly lesser order of cross-categorization. The reason it is egregious is because it makes an implicit assumption that somehow the illnesses of "notable people" are more important (notable) than those suffered by other people - but that is another story.  Ben   Mac  Dui  09:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the accent point, there is really no doubt that the characters, Amy Pond and Montgomery Scott are both Scottish in their stories. No assumption is required as authoritative sources such as the BBC verify this.  And, if we should have borderline cases, the list format is able to provide context, qualification and sources to fully inform the reader in a way that categories do not.  Note that Amy Pond, for example, appears in Category:Fictional Scottish people without any source or explanation. Lists are thus superior to categories in respect of this important core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the above contributions by Le Deluge & Novickas strike me as containing good arguments for an article about Scots (and Jews) in fiction, but not a list. Ben   Mac  Dui  20:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you think this way about it - if it's a valid category, and would make a valid article, why not a list? (Since its more meta, further discussion might better be conducted at Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates.) I just don't see anything at that guideline disparaging a list like this. Novickas (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - I'll do my best. The topic of "Scots in fiction" is notable. There are clearly any number of potential articles about notable fictional Scots. However, the list is potentially unmanageable - there must be thousands of potential members - and I can't think of any meaningful criteria based on either fame or influence that would limit them. Minor characters in Walter Scott novels, walk-on parts in River City, anyone appearing in The Broons etc. What then could the list achieve that a category could not, other than innumerable red links? I could  get enthusiastic about an article, but I can't see how a list per se adds anything very much.  Ben   Mac  Dui  18:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To me the primary advantage of a list is context and wikilinks, secondary one is brevity, which eases navigation. Wouldn't you want to see a list like this one if you were for some reason interested in Fictional Lithuanian characters or Fictional Thai characters and found only the category pages? Very familiar to some of us - totally incomprehensible to many - a dedicated article is good but takes a while to develop (and to read). About the uncontrolled growth problem. List of Honorverse characters is I believe one of the largest articles on WP. But don't you find that all articles show tendencies towards growing out of bounds? WP keeps things like, say, country articles within limits by routine, ongoing editorial decisions about notability, verifiability, moving details to subarticles, the usual slog. The management here would be that if/when minor characters show up, condense the entries along these lines: River City, a popular television soap opera set in Glascow, features a cast of characters connected through family and work. Novickas (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is our editing policy to build upon contributions rather than deleting them and starting afresh. If you would prefer a different title then this would be best achieved by a move, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you would like to copy the contents of the existing article into a sandbox, turn its contents into the beginnings of an article, and consent to the list being deleted I'd be happy to support your efforts. Ben   Mac  Dui  09:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be pleased to help any effort to write an encyclopaedic article on the subject. Claritas § 11:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actions such as move and content editing do not require deletion and it is our usual policy to retain the edit history for licensing and other purposes. Per our deletion policy, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD..  Colonel Warden (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Userfy or Delete . I had hopes that this article could be saved. But when I searched by combining famous fictional Scots, (such as "Connor MacLeod" "Montgomery Scott" Taggart) I did not find any previous attempt to compile a list except www.lonympics.co.uk/new/10Mostfamous_fictionalScottish_people.htm (the spamfilter prevents linking to the site). Nevertheless I believe that an article could be constructed on the portrayal of Scottish people in fiction, addressing the stereotyping and all that. That article could link to the Category:Fictional Scottish people. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your search keywords seem poor. Here's a particular list of the sort that you seem to be looking for: Best fictional Scots character.  Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed my vote to Keep. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The list aids in navigation, everything on it having its own Wikipedia article.  D r e a m Focus  21:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - isn't that what a category is for? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I note that already the list contains entries that redirect either to the book a character appears in or to the author who created the character. I'm intrigued that this has generated so much discussion, but on balance I still can't see that this article will serve any useful purpose, except to attract spurious entries from fans wanting to enter their favourite character and authors (or their friends and agents) wanting to promote their latest creation.  --Deskford (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Our editing guideline states clearly that "the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists". I could, if I chose, nominate and argue for deletion of the category which seems poorly populated, annotated and verified and so risks misleading our readership.  If we proceed in that way then, as the guideline indicates, we will have competitive destruction, rather than collaborative and synergistic construction.  As for useful purpose, the purpose of this list is education and navigation.  In working upon the list, I have learnt quite a few things - the history of Fingal, of Thomas the Rhymer and so on.  Promotional activity can afflict any article but there is no evidence that this has or will be a particular problem in this case.  We do not delete articles for the sake of purely hypothetical problems which can be remedied by ordinary editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your preference for a list rather than an article? The allegations about "pointyness" above hint at some previous engagement, which I assume is irrelevant, but I am intrigued as to your reasoning. Can you also explain, given my reservations about the potentially large and trivial nature of the entries, how you think they might be limited to avoid the worst excesses? Ben   Mac  Dui  19:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * An article like Scottish people? That seems rather scrappy and rambling, is covered in cleanup tags and is going nowhere.  It has a section about Scots in Poland which seems both large and trivial.  By comparison, the list we are discussing seems quite tight and to-the-point.  What makes you think that an article is easier to keep under control than a list?  My impression is the contrary. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not at all unsympathetic to the concept, which I support as being a notable one, and the article you mention is indeed below par. However, the above might apply more to a list with a more limited set of members. My concerns remain that a list would be indiscriminate and without the text of an article that would have to explain the value of the topic, it is likely to be little more than a place where lovers of popular trivia add the names of unimportant characters in TV shows. I don't see any explanation of the criteria that might be used to ensure it would be "quite tight and to-the-point". Ben   Mac  Dui  16:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article may be kept in good order by applying our general principles of balance and summary style. We have no particular bias against television as this would not be a neutral point of view.  Deletion should not be used as a means of applying cultural prejudice because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To the extent that it's a concern that this list get inundated with "names of unimportant characters in TV shows", where the show itself is set in Scotland and about Scots, this list could just link to the separate character lists for those TV shows, incorporating their contents by reference rather than duplicating them. Many lists operate this way.  postdlf (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR and – ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ─╢ 14:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, a simple, straightforward, and notable topic, and I see no valid or substantive arguments for deletion. The claims that this violates WP:NOTDIR as an "unencyclopedic cross-categorization" are contradicted by many of the same commenters, who have stated that an article on fictional Scots generally would be notable and acceptable.  I fail to see how a list of examples of an encyclopedic topic could be unencyclopedic.  Further, some claiming this is a nonencyclopedic cross-categorization have incredibly stated that the same topic would be nevertheless acceptable as a category.  The only valid concern I see here in any of the deletion comments is that the list may be indiscriminate, but on that I point there has not been any substantive discussion, only the nom's unelaborated opinion.  So I am not convinced that the list is inherently indiscriminate and that no threshold or inclusion criteria could be adopted or maintained.  postdlf (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. The topic of the portrayal of Scots in fiction has many sources. There is even a source that is a list. I never made the argument that the list is indiscrimate, and once the list source was demonstrated to me, I changed my mind. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete original research as a topic for a list that does not exist in reliable sources. Individual entries might be notable, but the list as a whole is not notable. 24.114.232.33 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How can it be OR if the portrayed nationality of a fictional character is verifiable? If you find any entries that have been included without justification, based purely on an editor's assumption (i.e., presuming any character with a Mc in his last name is Scottish), feel free to remove them, but there is no basis for saying that the very organizing concept of the list is inherently OR.  Plus many comments above have already shown that there are multiple reliable sources regarding the portrayal of Scots in fiction.  postdlf (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the category of the same name is all that's needed. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - a mere category would lack the ability to evolve such notable themes as Scots stock characters and perceived national characteristics. An article on fictional Scots or Scots in fiction, such as we have here, can develop encyclopedically. -- Jandalhandler (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - this list meets the criteria for WP:List. All the tedious arguments in AfDs on Lists that a category is sufficient makes me think that WP:CLN is written in some foriegn language, unintelligible by those opposed to lists. The subject of this list is notable, the entries are notable and sourced and WP:NOTDIR is much too thin and broad a brush to paint here. Nothing Indiscriminate in this one.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NOTDIR point 1 and 6 (loose association, unencyclopedic cross-categorization). Inclusion criterion puts together completely unrelated fictional works (and media), is completely arbitrary (what does MacBeth have to do with Groundskeeper Willie?). Why is Shrek on the list when he's not actually Scottish, just has the accent? To prove the pointlessness of the list by the absurd, would one consider making a similar list for fictional Americans?--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see this source which explains the Scottishness of Shrek and also brings in several of the other characters which the list covers. And Groundskeeper Willie had a part in Macbeth in this production.  As for Americans, please see Lists of Americans and Lists of American people.  These abundant precedents demonstrate that WP:NOTDIR is not directed at lists of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - as  Snotty Wong   points out below, those do not constitute precedent (List of Americans is not a cross-categorization, is a list of lists, contains no fictional characters and its Scottish equivalent is List of Scots, your other example is a category, not the same as a list article); but here's an actual precedent : Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think comparing fictional Americans to fictional Scots is not apt, however, because there is not and never will be a native literature and media in Scotland as voluminous as that of the U.S. In most cases, depictions of Scots in fiction are going to be in works by non-Scots.  And that is what Macbeth has to do with Groundskeeper Willie, btw; both are portrayals of Scots in non-Scottish media.  Those portrayals are centuries and countries apart, true.  This list does have a long way to go: it obviously should have a lot more entries, and it should be organized in some way into meaningful groupings, such as by culture of the portrayal (fictional Scots in English culture, fictional Scots in American culture), by time period, and/or by medium.  But that's work for the future, not a reason for deletion.  No one has made a convincing case that it is conceptually unsound or unencyclopedic to list fictional characters by their depicted nationality.  postdlf (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Warden, you continually prove that you don't fully understand the word "precedent". A precedent for this list would be List of fictional Americans, which does not exist.  The other lists you provided, while indeed lists, are not a precedent of this list.    Snotty Wong   talk 02:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These lists of lists are excellent precedents which destroy the false arguments from WP:NOTDIR that the list in question is indiscrimate or an arbitrary cross categorization. These lists are supersets and, because of their great potential size, have naturally been subdivided in various ways - by ethnicity, profession and so forth.  They demonstrate very clearly that lists based upon nationality are acceptable but that, for convenience, such lists may then be subdivided using an additional categorisation.  Fictionality is a sensible sub-division as it is quite notable and we naturally wish to distinguish people who existed, such as Dr Livingstone from those who did not, such as Dr Finlay.  We have other lists which use this form such as List of fictional Jews and so we're good.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The portrayal of Scots in fiction may be notable, but that isn't what this article is about. Portrayal of Scots in fiction is a totally different topic than List of fictional Scots This article is specifically about the list of fictional Scots and not the more general subject of how Scots are portrayed in fiction. The argument that this list should be kept due to WP:CLN misses the fact that we have different guidelines for what is a proper list and a proper cateogory, and these guidelines don't synch up perfectly.  There are many, many categories on Wikipedia that are not proper topics for lists, because we have guidelines such as WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIR that limit the focus of our list articles to topics of the right breadth.  So while extraordinarily broad lists are disallowed we allow categories similar in scope. Unlike list articles, categories are meant to function as a directory.  WP:CLN should be rewritten to include this as it is being misused to keep all sorts unencyclopedic lists.  Them  From  Space  07:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SALAT states clearly that we may have Lists of people and so is no bar to the list in question. It advises that "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles" and this is what has been done here.  The list is therefore compliant with this guideline.  WP:SALAT therefore supports retention of the list while WP:NOTDIR is irrelevant, being concerned with directory style and content, such as telephone numbers and addresses.  Lists are covered by WP:LIST not WP:DIRECTORY and so that's where we look for guidance.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:STAND explicitly states that standalone lists are articles and therefore are equally subject to our content policies such as WP:NOTDIR. WP:SALAT states types of lists which may be acceptable, if they do not infringe on any of our other policies and guidelines. WP:SALAT is also pretty clear that lists of too broad a scope have little value due to the breadth of the topic, and it is my opinion that this list is far too broad for a discriminate article to emerge from it.  This is because there are no bounds to the list as any notable fictional Scot would be allowed in, regardless of whether any reliable sources have made the connection with that particular character and any of the other fictional Scots on this list.  Them  From  Space  11:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your interpretations. WP:NOTDIR tells us not to make business guides or directories of non-notable things like Addresses of automated teller machines in Washington, D.C. or Telephone numbers of attorneys in Buffalo, New York.  It also tells us not to make lists of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations like List of attorneys from Buffalo, New York who served in the United States Air Force or List of companies that have red logos; this is directed at lists of non-notable topics, which we obviously don't have here if the organizing topic is notable and if a category of fictional Scots would be acceptable.  So the only relevant guideline I can see here would be the caution at WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT not to make lists that are too broad, like List of people.  But that problem with lists is cured by organizing the list into subheadings or splitting into sublists, as in Lists of people.  Which is an editing concern, not a deletion one.  My comments above have suggested several ways that Scots in fiction could be organized, so there are definitely ways this could be accomplished.  There is no requirement that the entries in a list organized around a notable topic/trait must have already been been combined in a list by a reliable source or otherwise compared (though strangely you don't think categories should be subject to the same requirement?).  That is not a fair interpretation of any guideline, and it has no merit in practice.  It is completely sufficient that a reliable source have said that A is X, and another reliable source said that B is X, to include them on a list of X, where X is a notable topic.  postdlf (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete despite sources this is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization that violates WP:NOT. People are not supposed to build a WP:COATRACK of quotes that are synthesized together into an original topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - with respect, its the list not the topic that is under discussion. I don't think there is much doubt that the topic is notable. Ben   Mac  Dui  15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep  Useful navigational aid. I cannae see the average reader being able to scan the contents of a category so conveniently. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL? Badger Drink (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The point made by WP:ITSUSEFUL is "you need to tell us why the article is useful or useless". FeydHuxtable did explain why - that the list is useful for navigation and browsing.  His observations are therefore quite proper.  Now please consider your own contribution below where you simply put WP:INDISCRIMINATE without providing any context, evidence or justification.  Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE which explains what is needed. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it immensely degrading to be expected to provide exhaustive surveys showing that a majority of people prefer sunny weather to cloudy weather in order to say it's a nice day outside. Others have already shown why this is indiscriminate, I am agreeing with their conclusions. Sorry to not indulge your love of process-wonkery. :( Badger Drink (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the first person in this discussion to use the short cut WP:INDISCRIMINATE and so it falls to you to explain and justify its relevance. The nominator uses the word indiscriminate but the essence of his argument seems to be that we should use a category rather than a list for this purpose.  WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not address this list vs category matter and so seems irrelevant.  WP:CLS is the relevant guideline and specifically advises against deletion in such cases.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you trolling, aspergic, or are you truly this enamoured with ritualistic formalized process to the detriment of even the most rudimentary attempt to connect your own dots? I have no strong opinions regarding a category, but I feel that this indiscriminate list should certainly be deleted from article space. I'm quite sorry if I failed to make that clear when I said "delete" and linked to a policy stating that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Badger Drink (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whats happened here BadgerDrink is that you made an invalid accusation that my vote was not compatible with guidelines, and the Colonel clearly and politely pointed out your mistake, adding that your own vote suffered from the flaw you incorrectly  accused others of.  Please try to react to constructive criticism with better grace in future.  Normally Id give a formal warning for your personal attack; fortunately for you in this case youve tried to slagg off an editor of such impeccable character that Im not minded to take your WP:NPA breach that seriously. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What's happened here, Feyd Huxtable, is that you offered a somewhat slipshod rationale for inclusion. I asked for clarification; offering, in the infinite generosity of my kindest of hearts, a chance for you to better explain your position. Then, like a bat out of hell - or like a learning-disabled kid falling out the back door of a schoolbus, I'm honestly not sure which particular image best captures this turn of events - the good Colonel (a fellow hyper-inclusionist, surprise of surprises) shows up to offer some much-appreciated rules-lawyering and process-wonkery ("why, he DID say how it was useful, because he said lists are useful! I note that you, Mr. Drink, did not fill out form 397f ("Restatement of that which has Already Been Said") in your rationale"). Matters, such as they are, evolved from there. I must admit, I felt my heart skip a beat, no doubt my face visibly paled at your subtle mention of formal warnings - praise Armok - I repeat, once more, for emphasis - praise fucking ARMOK - that you saw fit to let me off the proverbial hook with but a mere sternly-worded tongue-lashing. Badger Drink (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not a catch-all which may be used to delete anything which you don't happen to like. It is a list of six specific things such as lyrics and statistics.  The topic before us is none of these things and so this policy is irrelevant.  Please read the text of policies and guidelines rather than using the WP shortcuts indiscriminately, as if they were ordinary words. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither is WP:USEFUL, or "it's useful because it's useful", but surely an obvious non-partisan like yourself wouldn't deliberately let a useless rationale slide if it happened to coincide with your personal Wiki-political leanings, which you don't have as you're a complete non-partisian. Anyway, might want to reach around and give Feyd a friendly reminder about what a personal attack is, while you're on the subject of throwing around Wikilinks WP:INDISCRIMINATELY. Badger Drink (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Feyd Huxtable did not give a circular argument as you suggest with a false quotation. He stated that it was useful for navigation and browsing.  This is a specific purpose of lists as stated at WP:LIST.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A list of Restuarants by area code would also be useful for navigation and browsing, and thoroughly unencyclopedic. List of fictional characters with brown hair, List of left-handed authors by last name, List of words by the frequency in which they appear in the collected works of Shakespeare... all useful for navigation and browsing. None merit inclusion. Badger Drink (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So, behind your straw men, we see that your argument is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Now that is a circular argument. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please Wikilink a few more words? I feel your tone isn't quite condescending enough. "Now" and "see" are a couple ideas, I'm sure there are other opportunities for square brackets as well. It would have been a non-sequitur to reply to Feyd's argument of "it's useful" with "WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC". Continue playing the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game, this is quite a solid investment of our time. Badger Drink (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL isn't a useful retort if one is comparing the relative benefit of maintaining information in list and/or category form, as many comments have done here in urging that only a category is necessary. The utility to readers and editors of the particular format in relation to its content, or the utility of maintaining the information in multiple formats, is obviously relevant to the discussion.  postdlf (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is still no valid reason presented by Mr. Huxtable as to how a list is better for navigation and/or browsing than a category. Badger Drink (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Luckily he's not the only participant in this discussion. I've already provided reasons above as to why the list format is important for this topic, if not necessary.  Though there's no requirement (or good reason for requiring) that the list be better than the category for both to be maintained, only that there is a benefit to maintaining each or a lack of a compelling reason not to maintain both.  postdlf (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. As argued above, this is a non-encyclopedic directory listing.  Eluchil404 (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Badger Drink (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The depicted nationality of a fictional character is a significant aspect of that character, and the depiction of nationalities in fiction is, as observed above by most commenters, a notable and encyclopedic topic at least in this instance. So I fail to see how this list of examples of such is indiscriminate.  postdlf (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Then, with all due respect, I feel it's quite a nationalistic way of approaching fiction you have. It's one thing for, say, Braveheart, but to say that, for instance, Hamlet being Danish is automatically as important as, say, his relationship with his uncle... is stretching the bounds of "importance". (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not about me; that was a very strange statement to open your comment that I'm not sure I understand the point of, so perhaps you could explain what you meant. It also doesn't matter that nationality may be more important for some fictional characters than others, because 1) that the trait may be trivial for some entries may be reasonable grounds for excluding them without invalidating the whole list (see the example of List of atheists at WP:SALAT) or alternatively 2) it may not be a problem that an entry's inclusion in a particular group is not as important to the topic as other entries, as the ability to source, organize, and annotate lists can help give proper balance and context.  Re: Hamlet (to take your example), his Danish nationality doesn't need to be "automatically as important" as anything else for it to be in and of itself significant enough for documentation.  It's not a competition; different facts or traits can be organized in different lists, and any one entry could be placed in multiple lists (or categories, or templates...).  So the point isn't whether the Danish setting, and nationality, of the characters is the most important aspect or theme of Hamlet.  It doesn't need to be.  It certainly would be rather preposterous to assert that Hamlet being Danish is insignificant to The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, such that he wouldn't be worth mentioning in a list of fictional Danish characters (I honestly can't even think of any outside of Hamlet in English literature).  But it's curious that you point to Hamlet as an example when Macbeth is instead relevant to this list, and is known as "The Scottish Play".  postdlf (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Danish aspect of Hamlet is certainly notable, for example see The Danish background in Hamlet]. That play also has a Scottish aspect to it too - see 'Hamlet' and the Scottish Succession?.  Scotland, by its proximity to England and the shared monarchy has a special significance for the English. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep'. This list has grown from 1421 bytes on July 9 to 12,977 bytes now, and from the history several editors have contributed. That is enough for me to say that editors are interested in this list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how "editors being interested" in a topic has any bearing on inclusion whatsoever. Plenty of editors were interested in, for instance, Brian Peppers... and meanwhile, Somatopleure has precisely three (3) edits since 2007 - but the former is not included (with good enough reason, and the latter undeniably merits inclusion. Badger Drink (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect -redirect to Category:Fictional Scottish people.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 10:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting suggestion, and although mainspace to category redirects are rare, keeping the list in the history would help the process of adding any fictional Scots who aren't currently in the category to it. Claritas § 09:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * keep and expand Lists and categories complement each other, and a list can give a small amount of identifying information next to each entry, such as this one does. It can also be made more elaborate by adding information about author and date, and making it sortable. Everything here is verified, or is trivial to verify. The subject is significant, and there;s no reason for deletion. That there may be thousands of significant Scots in notable fictions is no objection--we're not paper, and if the list becomes too long for practicality, it can be divided. It's not indiscriminate, because it deals only with notable works of fiction and, at present, only individually notable characters. On the precedent of hundreds of other lists it could also include central characters in notable fiction about whom articles have not yet been written. Editors being interested in a topic is an argument wrth respect to a list, because if editors are not available to maintain a list, it gradually grows worthless.  DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 1 August 2010 (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.