Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National icon


 * 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. As it stands this article is inherently in violation of WP:NOR; there is clearly no conventional understanding of what constitutes a 'national icon' and the comments suggesting this can be ironed out through discussion on the talk page demonstrate a rejection of encyclopedic standards in favour of an idealised concept of consensus as fact. I note the phrase national icon is a possible search term so I'm recreating this as a redirect to national symbol. Flowerparty ☀ 07:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

National icon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

not official, or even coordinated, usage. Essentially it seems to be "things that represent country X to me". Ironholds (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC) — 173.7.181.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment' The problem here seems to be WP:NOR but I have not yet formed a complete opinion. There can be more than one "national icon" and there is no "official" designation for them.  Drawn Some (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will add citations. Canadian (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not encyclopedic but just a list - who decides what is a national icon? For countries which have verifiable national icons, they can have a category assigned to them. 173.7.181.118 (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What image do you first think of when you think of the US (Statute of liberty), France (Eifel tower). It isn't hard. There definetly is certain national icons for each country. Since you only have two edits on wikipedia. I added the "SPA" template, as per wikipedia custom in AfDs. The nominator should keep this in mind when he looks over this AfD. Ikip (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c x2) Weak delete. Article is referenced but those references do not indicate how this subject matter is notable, or why landmark A represents X country as opposed to any other landmark. For example, why Sydney Harbour Bridge instead of Sydney Opera House? KuyaBriBri Talk 18:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ''' why can't we discuss this in the discussion section of the article Canadian (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the article has been nominated for deletion, it must be discussed here. Drawn Some (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Canadian, there are two policies: WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. If these editors would follow these policies, there would be much less drama and confrantation and more cooperation, unfortuntatly, these polocies are almost ignored. Almost always, the first edit to an article a nominator for deletion does, is to put the article up for deletion. You can discuss your dismay of ignoring these policies at the talk pages, WP:ARS. WT:AFD will be less sympathetic, as many of these editors who ignore these policies congregate there. Ikip (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip, WP:BEFORE isn't a policy. It isn't even a guideline. It's a subsection of the instructions on AfD nominations and conduct. Please be careful when citing "policies" particularly if you are accusing editors of ignoring them. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is cited constantly where it states that these monuments are national icons. if the wikipedia editor community has disagreements over what is the most recognized icon, then we can discuss it, instead of deleting the entire article. if there is something that one does not find to be correct, then feel free to change/ or delete it. no one can deny that the statue of liberty is not the most recognized icon of the united states or the burj al arab does not represent the uae. Canadian (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's part of the problem. Wikipedia is not to be used as a source like that.  Everything here must be verifiable from independent reliable sources.  The example of Sydney discussed above is a good one, I have never been there and I recognize the Opera House but not the bridge which is given as the national icon.  And yes, you can deny that the Statue of Liberty is the most recognized icon of the United States.  The U.S. Capitol is a strong contender. State birds are designated by government, these icons are not officially designated.  Are any of these officially designated? Drawn Some (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess these national icons are represented by the media. You really do not need government approval to determine the official status of Burj Al Arab or the Merlion. I am pretty sure the Taj Mahal has some form of official designation. Chicagocubsfan (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but we are arguing the absurd here, the Statue of liberty is not the icon of the US? The Taj Mahal is not the icon of India? The Eifel Tower of France? Ikip (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as totally unverifiable (sourced to YouTube, blogs & Wikipedia mirrors) and unmaintainable. - Biruitorul Talk 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean unmaintainable? This changes with the construction of new structures. Do you really think that there is going to be another Statue of Liberty or another Burj Al Arab or Singapore is going to make another Merlion? Chicagocubsfan (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unmaintainable in the onslaught of warring POVs unsubstantiated (indeed unable to be substantiated) by reliable sources. - Biruitorul Talk 00:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You will find lots of POVs in controversial articles. Just check out an articles on gay marriage and abortion. If you have a POV different from ones expressed in the article, then feel free to edit it to your liking. Canadian (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not something salvageable through editing, as the lack of reliable sources on what makes individual monuments "national icons" attests. - Biruitorul Talk 01:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DEADLINE there is no deadline to clean up this article. AfD is not the place to clean up an article. All of your arguments are clean up argumets, which are irrelevant here. If editors would spend more time in colaberation with the editors who created these articles, instead of simply being the "party of no", shoting down all good faith attempts to fix the article, we could together make this article very well sourced. Ikip (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So who decides what's a national icon? This book says the US Capitol, not the Statue of Liberty, is the national icon of the United States. - Biruitorul Talk 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again I ask: who decides? I've found a source claiming the Capitol as the US national icon. says Banff is Canada's.  says the Sydney Opera House is Australia's.  says St. Paul's is the United Kingdom's. So again: whose POV are we going to enshrine here, and why? - Biruitorul Talk 05:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks good to me. I think what Canadian wants to say is that these are used most often to identify with a national. The Burj Al Arab and the Taj Mahal is a good contender. These things are pretty well cited and many times the citations refer to them as being national icons. By the way the television and magazines constantly refer to something as a national icon, this article is wholly relevant and fully has my consensus and will be pretty useful for Wikitravel. Just look at the city logo of Istanbul and then see how these icons are popularized. Another example would be the logo for Web.de. Chicagocubsfan (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC) — Chicagocubsfan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please explain how you think "looks good to me" and "useful for Wikitravel" relate to our Deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These icons are represented on tourism brochures, such as the UAE constantly using the Burg Al Arab to be an icon for their country. Others like the United States might use the Statue of Liberty. National icons is constantly seen in the media, but Wikipedia does not define it in any of its articles. Chicagocubsfan (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment (no recommendation for now) - First we need to look at the term "national icon" to make sure we're not getting into original research by using it to refer to these buildings/statues/landmarks. I suspect that the term might be ok (See ), but I'm not fully convinced. In any case, renaming the article to List of landmarks representative of their country or something similar would fix that. Second, is this article supposed to be encyclopedic treatment of the topic "national icon", or is it a list of icons/landmarks/buildings?  Third, as a list, why limit it to one icon per nation? I think the UK is as much represented by the Tower Bridge or Stonehenge as it is by Big Ben. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It misrepresents the sources for its very first sentence. They state that national icons can be a lot of things, ranging "from stunning natural and man-made wonders to humble food items".  The article, instead, states that national icons are just buildings.  So that's obviously the intention.  But the simple fact is, as can be seen by looking even at just the second source alone, that the concept of a "national icon" covers more than buildings, and there's a long list (at least for Australia) of things that are purportedly national icons.  I can find other sources that confer national icon status upon such diverse things as the Indian Pacific, Vegemite, and Paul Hogan.  Quoting the second source again: "There is no absolute agreement on what constitutes a national icon.". Uncle G (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets keep it real, Uncle Hogan will never show up as being a national icon. I believe there is already an article on Uncle Sam those types of articles. This is on national icons, that are man-made structures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadian (talk • contribs) 2009-04-29 23:53:57
 * Paul Hogan is your uncle? You may assert that national icons are man-made structures, but the second source cited in this very article says otherwise.  Given a conflict between what sources say, and what you assert to the contrary, sources win, per the No original research and Verifiability policies.  You should be happy to learn that your uncle, Paul Hogan, not only already has been a national icon (who fronted for Australia for several years) but is recognized as such by many sources, including this Philadelphia Inquirer article and this Independent article. Uncle G (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then tell me how Pablo Neruda would fit in with the Merlion? If you like Paul Hogan so much, then feel free to make a article about him and others like him.Canadian (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment So here is my proposal on what we shall do about this article. Instead of just listing one national icon per country, we can list two, or maybe three. For example for Australia, we can also list the Sydney Opera House and also add Capitol Hill for the United States. This should resolve any disagreement people might have on what constitutes the only national icon of a country. The best thing to do is to keep this article narrow to only include man-made structures. Canadian (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do is to stop trying to invent Wikipedia's own definitions for things, contrary to the No original research policy, and to stop trying to resolve disagreements with anything other than the neutral point of view and verifiability from reliable sources. Reliable sources, including the very ones cited in this article, state that "There is no absolute agreement on what constitutes a national icon." and that they can range "from stunning natural and man-made wonders to humble food items". Carlos Gardel is a national icon, by the way. (source) Uncle G (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The earlier definition stated that it was supposed to be a building/or a monument. I understand national artists like Carlos Garde and Pablo Neruda, but if we want to have them, then we will need a new article because this one will not suffice. The core gist of the article is about monuments that represent a place and is the most prominent (or more than one) structure of a country, like the examples given in the article. So he is the deal, we should agree to add more than one national icon. This article has nothing original in it, national icons are a known fact and you hear about is constantly in the media ex: Eiffel tower, Taipei 101. Canadian (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Instead of fighting over what is a national icon and what isn't, how about adding a section in the original article to express a POV different from the one expressed by the author. Wikipedia is a place where everyone contributes, if someone does not like it, then why don't they change it. I understand that some places (especially large countries) might have more than one national icon, then feel free to add it. For a small country like Kuwait, it is undeniable they have anything more than one like Kuwait Towers. Read any articles one Kuwait, and you will find that the Towers are inseparable from them, much like the Statue of Liberty is to the USA. Canadian (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. It is also in contradiction to WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and other core policies. Dahn (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete with fire Utterly subjective, potentially boundless, going nowhere. I don't think anyone could possibly count the number of things described as "national icons" by various sources in any given country, and it looks like no one is even trying - they're just throwing things in there. And, btw, who would have to define those landmarks? Dahn (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The more than 50 citations clearly state. The question you asked is valid, who does determine what constitutes a national icon. Well if you read the article, it happens in a plethora of ways. They are mainly fueled by the media and tourism companies, as with the taj mahal Proof. If it seems "absurd" to you, then tell me how on earth you would group and talk about the Merlion and Kuwait Towers Canadian (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. I recommend you to re-read my post, and see why it doesn't really matter how many sources you provide. Also have a look over WP:SYNTH, and, again, over WP:NOT. 2. Have a look over WP:RS, to see what level of sources is accepted on wikipedia (and yes, them being "fueled by the media and tourism companies" is actually reason not to take them into consideration). 3. How on earth would I group Merlion and Kuwait Towers? I wouldn't. Why on earth should I? And I cannot emphasize WP:NOT enough. Dahn (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Synth is one of the most misused rules in AfDs. If a source says that a particular building or monument is a national icon, there is absolutly no WP:SYNTH there. I think you need to take your own advice, and have a look over WP:Synth again. This article needs to sourced better. It was created by an editor with just over 1,123 edits. I wouldn't blame him for quitting wikipedia after the way his contributions have been treated. How can anyone say that stating "the taj mahal is India's national icon" subjective? If several sources state that it is a "national icon" then we can accept this. Are you refering to WP:IINFO in WP:NOT? If so, please take your own advice, and look over WP:NOT again. WP:IINFO is also one of the most misued rules in AfDs. Ikip (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually referring to WP:DIRECTORY, but several other sections also apply. As for WP:SYNTH, I'm being told by the editor that there's something necessarily connecting the things listed there, just because there are "sources" on both of them being icons, and that therefore we need this article. "How can anyone say that stating 'the taj mahal is India's national icon' subjective?" I can. Look, I'm saying it right now. Let's look at it this way: the statement still implies a POV, no matter how popular that POV is. Being popular doesn't mean being objective, and, that said, the argument you're constructing is a fallacy. What's more, you fail to account for what your argument implies: it means that any thing or person whom an RS or several have described as a national icon is a national icon. Now, you may find many sources saying that G W Bush, Gerry Ford, Bill Clinton, Dick Nixon etc. were incompetent, but that doesn't mean you can start a "List of incompetent US Presidents" (or, mutatis mutandis."List of competent US Presidents"). You need a basic objective criterion, not a product of interpretations. As logical as those interpretations may seem to you or me or the next guy, they're still not facts.
 * Now, India may have a system whereby it designates official national icons, like birds for US states or whatnot. It may, I just don't know. Even in this case, they would still be designated subjectively, and, if an article covering them is really necessary, there's nothing preventing anyone from creating an article on them, under an explicit title ("Officially-designated national icons of India" or something). And the basic point I made would still apply to the
 * And no, with all due respect for Canadian, I'm not going to circumvent basic logic just because of a supposed to protect the contributions of users with less edits, if and when these are questionable. Dahn (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: "Look, I'm saying it right now. Let's look at it this way: the statement still implies a POV, no matter how popular that POV is."
 * WP:NPOV: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Let me repeat that last line, one more time: The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV"
 * The president's list example is a strawman argument. A kind of negative WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't exist. The only way that I can counter such a strawman, is to list WP:OTHERSTUFF. I won't.
 * Again, this is not a synth argument. If source "A" says statue of liberty is a national icon, and source "B" says that the taj mahal is a national icon, listing those in an article, independent of each other is not synth. Synth is were you combine to facts with another. Look up the example in synth. Again, this is one of the most misused and misunderstood AfD arguments.
 * The only way to counter the absurd Taj Mahal argument is to violate WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. Your argument actually is supportive of this article. There are national birds and national animals, which a group of people subjectively decide on, and thats why valid reliable sources quote about these subjects and that is why we have articles on these subjects.
 * I find this argument silly. I feel like those who want to delete are arguing a sort of Bill Clinton "what is, is" argument. There are certain national images which the average person around the world thinks of, when they think of a particular country. No amount of wikilawyering and silly irrelevant examples can change this fact. I know we are not convincing anyone, so this is my last post here. Ikip (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'" Repeat all you want, since I'm not arguing in favor of removing article content "because it is POV", I am telling you that the content already exists (I'm not about to delete the Taj Mahal article). What you're citing is not in reference to what you assume it is, but simply to the basic notion that one cannot remove one of several referenced viewpoints "because it is viewpoint". In fact, let's read what it says immediately after, in the same paragraph: "Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides." This not only refutes your position on what the NPOV policy implies, it also suggests yet another time why the article we're discussing is non-compliant: "without endorsement of any particular point of view". This article is structured around a single POV on each item, and simply cannot function.
 * "Your argument actually is supportive of this article. There are national birds and national animals, which a group of people subjectively decide on, and thats why valid reliable sources quote about these subjects and that is why we have articles on these subjects." I'm not going to get dragged into that sort of sophistry. Let me emphasize that articles on an individual sets of national symbols according to non-ambiguous definitions already exist (see for instance List of Australian bird emblems, List of U.S. state birds, and, what do you know, List of Indian state birds). This ambitious and useless article on the one hand would have to list all such lists into a single one (a pointless and redundant task), to which it adds a lot of clutter about other things which a google search has been able to link to the notion of "national icon", by clumping up POVs regardless of what they mean to each other. And again: whose national icon? who has to call it a national icon, and who can judge whether that's correct or not? whose cultural take? whose historiography? whose tastes? I'm certain that, even in the most restrictive of definitions, Nazi Germany's national icons would not correspond to those of modern Germany, let alone the DDR (the same works for Russia and the Soviet Union, for Qing China, the PRC and the RoC, and, all things considered, even for the great Liberal-Conservative divide). I'm also sure that virtually any English writer who ever reached a level of prominence has once been called a "national icon" by someone. My own editing experience with Romanian and various other subjects presents me with a variety of interpretations in even the most mundane subjects, and that people whom some deem national symbols are scum to others, and vice-versa. How is one supposed to discriminate, and who should one favor? Oh, I see, nobody thought about that...
 * "There are certain national images which the average person around the world thinks of, when they think of a particular country." When I want to know what the average person of the world thinks of, I'll be sure to ask you. In the meantime, wikipedia doesn't, and this whole argument of yours looks like an appeal to emotion. Dahn (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are the fruits of my search: Capitol: The United States Capitol: Designing and Decorating a National Icon.(Review)(Brief Article). Eric Linderman. Library Journal 125.10 (June 1, 2000): p122. Washington Monument:Sam Durant at Paula Cooper. Anastasia Aukeman. Art in America 93.11 (Dec 2005): p139(1). Quote: "Any artist who considers pissing on the Washington Monument an interesting analysis and critique of that national icon's function deserves a good long look" Golden Gate Bridge: Guarding the Golden Gate. Steve Harding. Soldiers Magazine 59.3 (March 2004): p24(5). Quote: "This bridge is a national icon," said CPT John T. Preston of the California Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 143rd Field Artillery Regiment.'''
 * Delete. Utterly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. National icon isn't well-defined. This is just somebody's list of things they think of when they think of country X. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Since "National icon" has been defined as not just being about buildings, surely it is synonymous with cultural icon and should be merged there? Note that that page is not a list, and also note the AfD discussion on Cultural icon which brings up some of the same points being made here. If the list must be kept, I would support Big Ben's suggestion of renaming the article. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Subjective list at best, unless we are to have it list everything that reliable sources call a "National icon" which, I fear, would be very messy indeed.   I can think f more than two dozen for the US alone, and suspect that other countries have a few more as well.  Even Vatican City has the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, St. Peter's and a few more -- and that is just a small example.  Collect (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, the best thing to do is to add more than one object per country. Remember that a cultural icon is not a national icon. Cultural spans over several countries (ex: Kurdish) and many countries do not have a unique culture (ex. Switzerland). A living icon like Pablo Neruda for Chile, cannot be amalgamated with non-living objects like the Merlion. My solution is to add more than one per country. For a start,I will add the Sdyney Opera for Australia. To avoid disagreements over ones of several countries, I have added the Tower Bridge and the Sydney Opera Houses. Hope this will ease some of the arguments presented here. Someone said that its absurd to have an article on Kuwait Towers or the Burj Al Arab or even the Eiffel Tower. Why do you think that their respective governments spent hundreds of millions of dollars constructing them, just for the sake of doing so? ofcourse not, these are national icons. In the case of the Kuwait Towers, a water tower does not have to be that elaborate, it serves a purpose, and it is a NATIONAL ICON. I guess the most sensible solution would be to rename the article as the most recognized national icons. HAVE A LOOK AT THIS Canadian (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are now arbitrarily declaring what are considered national icons, and which countries have "no unique culture"? Have you ever even been to Switzerland? Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you misunderstood me, Switzerland does not have a level of unique identity that lets say Japan has. What I meant to say is that there is no such as a Swiss people (you are either German, French or Italian). Even a much large country like Canada lacks a unique identity, and who is better than to say it than Margaret Atwood. I know there might be things that can be called Swiss, but is not unique to them. I am not declaring anything to be a national icon. As for the Swiss question, their cultural identities such as cruisine, or national bird can overlap with other countries neighboring it. For example there are several states in the USA with the state bird of cardinal. When it is a structure in Switzerland, it becomes uniquely Swiss. There are over 60 citations that pretty much state that these things are national icons. Now, I think that major problem or having an unique national icon has been resolved by the addition of multiple widely internationally recognized icons of a certain. Like Australia having both the Opera House and the Harbour Bridge. I guess this arguments will closely mimic Cultural icons' nomination Canadian (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you are a Swiss person not Italian, or German. It isn't a race certainly, but neither is French. Speaking either Italian, German or French does not make you from Italy, Germany or France. If you apply that standard Belgium doesn't have a national identity (they speak french!) and neither does the US (although I refuse to take responsibility for "aluminum). Again, and I'll emphasise this, it is not your place to arbitrarily decide which nations have a cultural identity, and which icons represent that culture. Ironholds (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: from Wikipedia article on Belgium--An estimated 59% of the Belgian population speaks Dutch (often colloquially referred to as "Flemish"), and French is spoken by 40%.--Buster7 (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but you see my point. Ironholds (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * '''Problem Solved. There is not problem with the initial definition of national icon. But as stated earlier, I checked out some databases and some how for the USA, there are a lot more national icons than the Statue of Liberty, like the US Capitol.
 * So you are cobbling a load of different sources together to say "these, THESE are national icons". In one case it is a National Guard captain saying that; is a national guard captain considered a Reliable Source now? People will call just about anything a national icon; try and make a list on that basis and you'll have more "national icons" for the US than states. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) oh, and don't remove my comments

Comment - You know, of 65 references you used, something like 32 fail WP:RS - you might want to take a minute and review that guideline. You still have not defined who decides what a national icon is. You are simply using Google searches to amalgamate totally disparate POVs regardless of how they relate. You may wish to check out WP:SYNTH as well for why that is not acceptable. Shouting "it is a NATIONAL ICON" will not strengthen your argument one iota in the absence of reliable sources actually linking any of these POVs into something resembling coherence. Since you can't find that, deletion is the answer. - Biruitorul Talk 16:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then tell me how the article cultural icon is much more reliable? Back to your question, who decides what the cultural icons of a country is? Yet this article provides much more citations from newspapers, blogs and academic journals of what constitutes an icon. The media and the people decide what are national icons of a country. If need be that we have to add thirty or fifty more icons, then be it. Difficult issues should not be avoided, and especially relevant ones like this where the newspapers and magazines constantly state "national icons." And who says wikipedia has to be complete, after time, users wll edit their countries national icon and fix existing ones. One just cannot add them in a span of three days. Canadian (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first question is answered by WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, see WP:SPS: "blogs [and] Internet forum postings ... are largely not acceptable" as sources. Again: you're combining disparate POVs with no relation to one another in an attempt to present this phenomenon as a coherent whole. It's not flying. - Biruitorul Talk 18:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is obviously notable and I have added a citation to an encyclopaedia to demonstrate this. We have other articles upon similar topics, such as National symbol and National emblem and they all seem to need work.  Deletion is not helpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't pointing out those articles actually add the issue that this article is redundant (i. e. a contentfork)? Dahn (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of those articles is to prove that the concept National icon exists. Look the main point of this entire argument is that we will never have all the examples of national icons. Thats fine with me, the article on Verb in Wikipedia does not list all the verbs, but gives the examples. The wikipedia community is just making things harder for themselves. Canadian (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice to know you have been appointed Grand High Tutnum of the Wikipedia Community. The main issue is not that we won't have the articles, it is that 1) examples are entirely subjective, 2) your referencing standards allow anything anyone once mentioned as being a "national icon" to be included and 3) it is entirely unofficial. National symbols and emblems are official symbols referenced by the government or whichever nation. These are not. Ironholds (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (To Canadian:) Are you familiar with the word "synonym"? Because wikipedia does not have an article on each and every synonym. And I don't think anyone is disputing that the concept of a "national icon" exists: aside from being, in the singular context when it would still be usable, a synonym of national symbol (which is and will hopefully stay a descriptive article, not somebody's essay about what others should associate with a country), it does not describe anything readily identifiable outside of a POV. See ignoratio elenchi. Dahn (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats the point, this article does not directly talk about national symbols because for example the national symbol of a country may be a cherry flower (as with Japan), but this article deals with structures in particular like the Eiffel Tower and the Burj of Arab. To give you an example, the lion represents Great Britain, but this article would not state the lion, but the Big Ben. Dahn, I think you are missing the point. Canadian (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Canadian, we all understand by now what you think the article could be used for, but that's utterly irrelevant, since we are not here to create articles based on the meaning we prefer they have. As long as "national icon" has been used to define basically every sort of thing, and since there is no relevant, neutral, information it can possibly provide, keeping it around just because you like it is not an option. Now, I believe I've made my point as far as wikipedia content guidelines are concerned, so I'm not gonna get tangled in what is manifestly a sterile debate about your personal preferences. Dahn (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep well referenced article meeting all notability guidelines. Ikip (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes it is. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A very interesting and attractive article, well laid out. Almost too notable. Dahn does a good job pointing out the synth / OR issues  and the difficulty in adequately capturing what "national icon" means from a global perspective.  But similar arguments could be used against many of the more interesting topics. Are we going to cleanse the encyclopaedia of all challenging but  interesting articles?  I dont think so! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually ideally, yes. If you can point me towards an "interesting" article that is a mass of OR and synth then I'd be happy to AfD it. Inclusion criteria are not based on "this editor thinks it is cool". Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Im going to have to decline that request as I wouldnt want to risk getting you in trouble for not complying with policy.  If you come across an article on a notable subject with OR & Synth issues, the thing to do would be to address those issues, not move for deletion.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Im going to have to decline that request as I wouldnt want to risk getting you in trouble for not complying with policy"; how nice of you. Let me explain, then; if you come across an article on a notable subject so incredibly pisspoor and full of OR and Synth that the only thing to do is to tear it down and start again, you should tear it down and start again. Simple. In addition, how would you make this article not full of OR and Synth? There are no "official" icons. Ironholds (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Our topics do not require official definitions - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. For example, I was just reading about the fine topic of Wiener dog racing.  Officialdom tends to frown upon this and you won't find this sport in the Olympic games but eppur si muove.  The OR here is yours - inventing policies which we don't have. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I phrased that rather badly, my apologies. What I meant was that here you don't have one official/highly respected/whatever source saying "X is the national icon of France", say; it isn't like national birds/coats of arms/so on. In the absence of any uniform set of sources (and there are none) this thing is always going to be Synthesis; cobbling together various sources to say that X is a national icon, or Y. Ironholds (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier. National birds are not unique to any country, the eagle may be America's bird, but there are eagles in Russia and China. Same goes for the maple leaf of Canada, there are maple trees all around the world, or the ceder of Lebanon, heck there is a ceder tree right in front of my house. Again look at the Arab World for example, they all speak arabic and probably all state that the thobe and the abaya are their "icons", but these are not unique to any particular country. UAE has their unique Burj al Arab and Kuwait has their Kuwait Towers. The sources that I provided earlier are from notable databases from journals and magazines where they clearly state that the particular structure is a national icon. The sources provided are balanced from newspapers, journals, book and blogs. How many sources do we need. There are so many things that really does not be told. I do not think we need to be told by a scientific journal that a cow has four legs, that's a well established fact. Much like the Merlion and the Pyramids represent their respective countries. Canadian (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you don't understand what I mean. The maple is not unique to canada, no, but it is the canadian national image. It is on their flag, they consider it a national image, so on. that is what I meant by official recognition. Your sources include blogs (about as RS as "my mate Steve in the pub"), a holiday guide and a publicly editable forum. Those aren't notable. Those aren't journals, or magazines, or anything reliable. Those are dross. Ironholds (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I you remembered earlier, I did provide journal entries and magazine articles. Here you are judging the newspaper articles that I provided. I challenge you to refute any of my sources and say that the Taj Mahal is not an icon of India and that the Burj al Arab does not represent the UAE. You just cannot refute any sources (and those does include tonnes of newspaper articles). Then that makes your argument completely baseless. Canadian (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Refuting sources? Alright. this is some bloke's blog. this is a travel site anyone can contribute to. Shall I continue? Here's what I mean. You say the Taj Mahal is an icon of india, alright. Maybe some journal writer says the Taj Mahal is the icon of india. Does the indian government say that? If we base "what is an icon" on "something someone wrote a journal article about" how many other icons can you have? How can you have more than one iconic structure for a country? And so on. Please read WP:SYN; if A says something is an "icon", and B says something else is an "icon", it doesn't then follow that they are both comparable national icons. Ironholds (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I love how you are picking and choosing. The sources are not based on blogs, but on newspaper articles. The blogs are just there to give a balanced argument to show what the average people, not what the press has to say. What makes the government move legit than the press and the newspapers. Isn't it a fact that during the Second World War, the government scuffled the entire Taj Mahal Source that the government goes to save their national monument (there might be more) and so much more source environmental laws have just passed for the taj mahal. This same argument could be said the others like the Pyramids of Egypt (if only i could read arabic). You are one of those people who needs to hear the government say that cows have four legs to believe it. And you still did not find me a source or a blog that says that the Taj Mahal is not a national icon of India. Canadian (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody gives a shit what the ordinary people say; ordinary people aren't a Reliable Source. Please avoid making personal comments and answer my WP:SYNTH points. Ironholds (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone is losing his/her temper there. Instead of huffing and puffing, find me a quote. Then are you undermining democracy where the ordinary voices are heard. Would you like it if Saddam Hussain stated that the Taj Mahal was a national icon of India source. The government has more things to do than to make a list of all things songs/dances/icons/people etc. Sometimes we have to go with the newspapers when the government does not step in. If PhD theses can accept newspaper articles as a sources, then so can wikipedia. And to answer to your question, you do not explicitly need an article talking about how the Taj Mahal is a national indian icon, when it is so obvious. Look I was never arguing that the Taj is the only national icon, just saying it is one. I am aware that not all wikipedia articles need to official source. Canadian (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually yes you do need to cite it; otherwise it is called Original Research. Ironholds (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was never a original research. An original article is making mundane arguments like the US Revolution was not a revolution. I am just giving well cited facts. The more that fifty sources that say the same thing. And I am pretty sure that all my sources are cited. You act like you have never heard about national icons before. You are breaking the bureaucracy policy of wikipedia [source [[User:Canadian|Canadian]] (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:OR Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as AfD is not the spot to discuss WP:CLEANUP of parts or sections or entries in the article. Take that to its talk page after a proper keep. User:Colonel Warden and User:Canadian have wisely pointed out that precedent has been set for such articles, and User:Ikip and User:FeydHuxtable have pointed out the the article is properly sourced. This article improves Wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the introductory text (which more sources) and kill the list. Move the list to List of national icons or something and cut most of the crud but deletion is pretty extreme.  Deletion is not cleanup.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that just make it a vaguely defined dictionary definition? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Finally I found national icon being defined by a government, so it debunks Ironholds arguments. So I guess that a government defining it means that the argument has ended on the legitimacy of the national icon concept. It states that it can be anything I guess non-living. source. Anyways I guess humans would not count as national icons, because they would be "iconic." Any ideas on how to interpret the government's definition? Anyways I guess these are some other government sites about national icons Britain,Illinois Canadian (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I previously added that link to the National icon article as the reference for Vegemite, so it should have been easy to find. Contrary to what you've written above, it actually states "Most Australians...lists would be just as likely to include a cricketer named Don Bradman,..." so it appears that humans are considered "national icons" sometimes. Here's the point - there is no agreed upon definition for "national icon", which is what people have been trying to say to you in this AfD. And you're further proving the point with those links that you offer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree this will be a difficult article to talk about. Then someone should write about the ambiguities as they see it. This article is perfectly legitimate and deals with a tangible issue. I still do not understand why this is up for deletion. If people have disagreement, then they are free to edit it to their liking, but to delete a legit issue that has been recognised by the government and media will be a crime. Canadian (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: Per WP:OR. The selection seems completely subjective in most cases, and these choices as icons are not official. --Ragib (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like someone has not even read what was written above and the his argument has been answered a long time ago. Dear Ragib, please read the arguments presented above before making a decision. Now we are not taking about whether this article should be deleted, but how to properly define national icon. Again I ask you to prove to find me a source that states that the mentioned icons are not national icons. You cannot do it. Your agrument is baseless. Canadian (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read the article, and found totally baseless claims presented with frivolous references. To give an example, you claimed Jatiyo Smriti Soudho as the "national icon" of Bangladesh. That is a very subjective opinion as the Government of Bangladesh never defined anything as national icons, nor is this a widespread opinion. Seems like it applies to the other claims as well. Before I spend any time "disproving your claim", how about *you* spend some time digging up some references showing that these "national icons" are not your subjective opinion but rather have official status? --Ragib (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A reasonably good job so far. Main thing that is needed is expansion and discussion. Perhaps a paragraph for each country, instead of a table. DGG (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as long as it is well-referenced (which is mostly the case so far). I had concerns about this article when I saw the title, but actually it doesn't look particularly problematic. Robofish (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the arguments several people (Biruitorul, Dahn, Delicious carbuncle, Ragib & others) have given for deleting this WP:LISTCRUFT. Spiesr (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. Sure, there are sources, but it's such a subjective subject. Editors will add new "icons" to the list, because they personally feel that those things are national icons. No-one will be able to remove them, because merely showing that there's a strong link with the country allows it to remain. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 10:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Clean there are like, 63 references. Any unverifiable ones should be removed, but the article as a whole should be kept.--Unionhawk Talk 15:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But you see, even if there were like, 630 references, it still wouldn't matter. That's not the point. The point is that we're taking POVs - and they are just people's opinions - from totally disparate sources and contexts, and stringing them all together in this mess of a list. That's not how it's done. We need actual discussion of the notion of a "national icon" in one or preferably more sources, not the admixture of whatever Google supplies for us. Try nominating this at WP:FLC - think it'll ever fly? - Biruitorul Talk 03:00, 9 May 2009 (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.