Knowledge:Articles for deletion/National icon

1234:"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 1425:

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

2165:. 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 1262:, 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... 1241:"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 1943:"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 2489:. 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? -- 1611:

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.

52:; 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 932:, 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 305:. 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, 1369:. 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 1265:"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. 1104:

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

1989:

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)

1721:

Nice to know you have been appointed Grand High Tutnum of the Knowledge 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)

1258:

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,

1202:

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.

377:

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.

2424:

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

2121:

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

1424:

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

1342:

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

1257:

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

635:

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 Knowledge does not define it in any of its articles.

567:

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

504:

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",

2466:

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

2025:

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

1610:

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

1143:

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,

1138:

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

1103:

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

2598:

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

2089:

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

1770:

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

2062:

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

1381:. 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 2004:

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

225:

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

2575:. 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. 1890:

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

1446:

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).

358:

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

1797:

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

961:

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. Knowledge is a place where everyone contributes, if someone does not like it, then why don't they change it. I

702:

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

1009:

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,

674:

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

1928:

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.

1218:. 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. 1538:

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"

1031:

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

2112:

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

2160:

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

1360:

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

1210:

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

711:, 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 2409:

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.

1542:

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

1551:

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

898:. 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". 392:

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.

1633:: "blogs 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. - 441:

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?

2372:. 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 962:

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

1905:

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".

1595:" 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. - 1158:

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.

1322: 1139:

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

568:

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

359:

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.

1147:

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

1134:, 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 248:

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

2599:

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

2040:

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.

331:

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

1744:. 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 124: 2026:

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.

378:

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?

1535:

Capitol: The United States Capitol: Designing and Decorating a National Icon.(Review)(Brief Article). Eric Linderman. Library Journal 125.10 (June 1, 2000): p122.

1527:. 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. 407:

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?

1410:

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?

1298:. 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. 2146:

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.

2467:

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.

2373: 1587:

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

1651:

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

1703:

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

1253:). 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 1073:

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

543: 489:

This is not something salvageable through editing, as the lack of reliable sources on what makes individual monuments "national icons" attests. -

2094:; 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. 1325:

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.

1155:

them, under an explicit title ("Officially-designated national icons of India" or something). And the basic point I made would still apply to the

2205:

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

2510:

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.

1722:

it is entirely unofficial. National symbols and emblems are official symbols referenced by the government or whichever nation. These are not.

1069:, to see what level of sources is accepted on wikipedia (and yes, them being "fueled by the media and tourism companies" is actually reason 966:. 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. 153:

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.

598: 2364:, so it debunks Ironholds arguments. So I guess that a government defining it means that the argument has ended on the legitimacy of the 2082: 2377: 207: 191: 2044:

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

1707:

in Knowledge does not list all the verbs, but gives the examples. The wikipedia community is just making things harder for themselves.

928:

The earlier definition stated that it was supposed to be a building/or a monument. I understand national artists like Carlos Garde and

671: 1144:

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.

2063:

cannot refute any sources (and those does include tonnes of newspaper articles). Then that makes your argument completely baseless.

91: 86: 844:

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

2533:

the case so far). I had concerns about this article when I saw the title, but actually it doesn't look particularly problematic.

1174:"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." 602: 546: 215: 95: 2481:

I have read the article, and found totally baseless claims presented with frivolous references. To give an example, you claimed

1426: 1057:

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

790: 1798:

guidelines are concerned, so I'm not gonna get tangled in what is manifestly a sterile debate about your personal preferences.

1771:

represents Great Britain, but this article would not state the lion, but the Big Ben. Dahn, I think you are missing the point.

1242: 887: 17: 1891:

interesting topics. Are we going to cleanse the encyclopaedia of all challenging but interesting articles? I dont think so!

883: 770: 757: 78: 456:

Unmaintainable in the onslaught of warring POVs unsubstantiated (indeed unable to be substantiated) by reliable sources. -

2550:

per the arguments several people (Biruitorul, Dahn, Delicious carbuncle, Ragib & others) have given for deleting this

2415: 2342: 2261: 528: 340: 1112:? 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. 1330: 781:

been a national icon (who fronted for Australia for several years) but is recognized as such by many sources, including

2425:

it to their liking, but to delete a legit issue that has been recognised by the government and media will be a crime.

2213:. You act like you have never heard about national icons before. You are breaking the bureaucracy policy of wikipedia 2108:

I love how you are picking and choosing. The sources are not based on blogs, but on newspaper articles. The blogs are

1990:

this thing is always going to be Synthesis; cobbling together various sources to say that X is a national icon, or Y.

769:

says otherwise. Given a conflict between what sources say, and what you assert to the contrary, sources win, per the

2090:

many other icons can you have? How can you have more than one iconic structure for a country? And so on. Please read

1394: 1181:: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. 737:

Lets keep it real, Uncle Hogan will never show up as being a national icon. I believe there is already an article on

2589:

there are like, 63 references. Any unverifiable ones should be removed, but the article as a whole should be kept.--

659:(no recommendation for now) - First we need to look at the term "national icon" to make sure we're not getting into 1449:

not your place to arbitrarily decide which nations have a cultural identity, and which icons represent that culture

1250: 1151:, and, if an article covering them is really necessary, there's nothing preventing anyone from creating an article 895: 549: 2626: 2302: 1626: 1556:

a national icon; try and make a list on that basis and you'll have more "national icons" for the US than states.

693: 610: 36: 505:

shoting down all good faith attempts to fix the article, we could together make this article very well sourced.

2625:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2411: 2338: 2257: 1980: 1872: 1664: 1246: 641: 594: 581: 447: 398: 373:

Yeah, that's part of the problem. Knowledge is not to be used as a source like that. Everything here must be

336: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

131:

not official, or even coordinated, usage. Essentially it seems to be "things that represent country X to me".

1793:

be used for, but that's utterly irrelevant, since we are not here to create articles based on the meaning we

211: 195: 1326: 891: 774: 475:. If you have a POV different from ones expressed in the article, then feel free to edit it to your liking. 2162: 723:. Quoting the second source again: "There is no absolute agreement on what constitutes a national icon.". 2609: 2593: 2581: 2563: 2542: 2521: 2498: 2476: 2461: 2452:. The selection seems completely subjective in most cases, and these choices as icons are not official. -- 2434: 2419: 2388: 2346: 2328: 2316: 2307: 2265: 2200: 2178: 2155: 2139: 2103: 2072: 2057: 2035: 1999: 1984: 1956: 1938: 1934: 1915: 1900: 1896: 1876: 1854: 1849: 1838: 1807: 1780: 1765: 1731: 1716: 1694: 1668: 1639: 1620: 1601: 1565: 1507: 1493: 1460: 1437: 1419: 1405: 1352: 1334: 1309: 1304: 1274: 1227: 1167: 1121: 1086: 1052: 1023: 999: 975: 949: 916: 877: 828: 806: 732: 697: 645: 622: 585: 557: 537: 514: 495: 484: 462: 451: 436: 416: 402: 387: 368: 344: 322: 292: 277: 262: 235: 199: 176: 162: 140: 60: 882:

The best thing to do is to stop trying to invent Knowledge's own definitions for things, contrary to the

186:

This is not encyclopedic but just a list - who decides what is a national icon? For countries which have

1187:

The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV"

1183:

The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV"

249: 82: 57: 1317:

Since "National icon" has been defined as not just being about buildings, surely it is synonymous with

551:

says St. Paul's is the United Kingdom's. So again: whose POV are we going to enshrine here, and why? -

860:

for the United States. This should resolve any disagreement people might have on what constitutes the

2482: 2324: 2295: 1207: 1196: 1192: 745: 689: 383: 288: 158: 2319:

or something and cut most of the crud but deletion is pretty extreme. Deletion is not cleanup. --

2209:. The more that fifty sources that say the same thing. And I am pretty sure that all my sources are 2048:. Those aren't notable. Those aren't journals, or magazines, or anything reliable. Those are dross. 1752:

associate with a country), it does not describe anything readily identifiable outside of a POV. See

2551: 2334: 2278: 2196: 2151: 2099: 2053: 1995: 1976: 1952: 1911: 1868: 1727: 1660: 1561: 1503: 1456: 1415: 1127: 637: 590: 577: 443: 394: 136: 2114: 936:, national icons are a known fact and you hear about is constantly in the media ex: Eiffel tower, 430:

as totally unverifiable (sourced to YouTube, blogs & Knowledge mirrors) and unmaintainable. -

2538: 2472: 2430: 2401:, so it should have been easy to find. Contrary to what you've written above, it actually states 2384: 2174: 2135: 2068: 2031: 1776: 1712: 1616: 1433: 1401: 1048: 971: 945: 873: 853: 824: 819:? If you like Paul Hogan so much, then feel free to make a article about him and others like him. 753: 501: 480: 364: 310: 298: 273: 253: 172: 2277:

of parts or sections or entries in the article. Take that to its talk page after a proper keep.

2117:

that the government goes to save their national monument (there might be more) and so much more

1748:(which is and will hopefully stay a descriptive article, not somebody's essay about what others 782: 2403:"Most Australians...lists would be just as likely to include a cricketer named Don Bradman,..." 1969:. Officialdom tends to frown upon this and you won't find this sport in the Olympic games but 765:

Paul Hogan is your uncle? You may assert that national icons are man-made structures, but the

313:

will be less sympathetic, as many of these editors who ignore these policies congregate there.

2290: 2274: 2021:

Burj al Arab and Kuwait has their Kuwait Towers. The sources that I provided earlier are from

1966: 1930: 1892: 1844: 1753: 1489: 1348: 1299: 912: 802: 728: 618: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

531:

says the US Capitol, not the Statue of Liberty, is the national icon of the United States. -

2559: 1036:. If it seems "absurd" to you, then tell me how on earth you would group and talk about the 542:

Again I ask: who decides? I've found a source claiming the Capitol as the US national icon.

374: 328: 302: 1033: 2604: 2576: 2494: 2457: 2320: 1745: 1682: 1656: 1652: 1634: 1596: 1588: 1481: 1131: 1105: 1058: 609:

Please explain how you think "looks good to me" and "useful for Wikitravel" relate to our

552: 532: 490: 457: 431: 379: 284: 258: 154: 53: 2078: 1583:- you might want to take a minute and review that guideline. You still have not defined 904: 2590: 2192: 2147: 2095: 2049: 1991: 1971: 1962: 1948: 1907: 1834: 1803: 1761: 1723: 1690: 1557: 1499: 1473: 1452: 1411: 1270: 1223: 1214:

I find this argument silly. I feel like those who want to delete are arguing a sort of

1178: 1163: 1117: 1082: 1019: 995: 987: 712: 510: 412: 318: 231: 132: 2600: 2534: 2517: 2468: 2426: 2394: 2380: 2365: 2357: 2282: 2170: 2131: 2091: 2064: 2027: 2017:

are their "icons", but these are not unique to any particular country. UAE has their

1772: 1741: 1708: 1700: 1630: 1612: 1607: 1524: 1429: 1397: 1370: 1318: 1109: 1074: 1062: 1044: 1041: 983: 967: 963: 941: 900: 869: 820: 749: 476: 360: 332: 306: 269: 168: 150: 74: 66: 49: 1343:

Chapel, the Pieta, St. Peter's and a few more -- and that is just a small example.

707:. But the simple fact is, as can be seen by looking even at just the second source 572:

and then see how these icons are popularized. Another example would be the logo for

467:

You will find lots of POVs in controversial articles. Just check out an articles on

2572: 2449: 2369: 2254: 2188: 1580: 1485: 1378: 1374: 1362: 1344: 1259: 1066: 929: 908: 857: 812: 798: 724: 676: 668: 663:

by using it to refer to these buildings/statues/landmarks. I suspect that the term

660: 614: 468: 2293:

have pointed out the the article is properly sourced. This article improves Wiki.

741:

those types of articles. This is on national icons, that are man-made structures.

112: 1321:

and should be merged there? Note that that page is not a list, and also note the

886:

policy, and to stop trying to resolve disagreements with anything other than the

2555: 2315:

the introductory text (which more sources) and kill the list. Move the list to

283:

Because the article has been nominated for deletion, it must be discussed here.

2490: 2486: 2453: 2006: 937: 777:

policies. You should be happy to learn that your uncle, Paul Hogan, not only

720: 680: 2286: 1830: 1799: 1757: 1686: 1266: 1219: 1215: 1159: 1113: 1078: 1015: 991: 738: 506: 408: 314: 227: 2285:

have wisely pointed out that precedent has been set for such articles, and

1195:

doesn't exist. The only way that I can counter such a strawman, is to list

2512: 2398: 716: 569: 472: 1191:

The president's list example is a strawman argument. A kind of negative

1737: 1477: 1469: 1366: 1203:

Again, this is one of the most misused and misunderstood AfD arguments.

1037: 816: 684: 2118: 864:

of a country. The best thing to do is to keep this article narrow to

670:), but I'm not fully convinced. In any case, renaming the article to 573: 1523:

Problem Solved. There is not problem with the initial definition of

1206:

The only way to counter the absurd Taj Mahal argument is to violate

2009:

for example, they all speak arabic and probably all state that the

268:

why can't we discuss this in the discussion section of the article

2127: 2014: 2010: 1975:. The OR here is yours - inventing policies which we don't have. 1659:

and they all seem to need work. Deletion is not helpful in this.

1365:

for Chile, cannot be amalgamated with non-living objects like the

2619:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2166: 1704: 2368:

concept. It states that it can be anything I guess non-living.

1579:- You know, of 65 references you used, something like 32 fail 1442:

No, you are a Swiss person not Italian, or German. It isn't a

1238:

around a single POV on each item, and simply cannot function.

1965:. For example, I was just reading about the fine topic of 1829:

well referenced article meeting all notability guidelines.

190:

national icons, they can have a category assigned to them.

1591:

as well for why that is not acceptable. Shouting "it is a

48:. As it stands this article is inherently in violation of 1699:

The point of those articles is to prove that the concept

119: 108: 104: 100: 226:

should keep this in mind when he looks over this AfD.

1947:

full of OR and Synth? There are no "official" icons.

1472:--An estimated 59% of the Belgian population speaks 1742:does not have an article on each and every synonym 1681:the issue that this article is redundant (i. e. a 852:. For example for Australia, we can also list the 1961:Our topics do not require official definitions - 672:List of landmarks representative of their country 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2629:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1130:, but several other sections also apply. As for 1736:(To Canadian:) Are you familiar with the word " 1185:. Let me repeat that last line, one more time: 982:That's absurd. It is also in contradiction to 2529:, as long as it is well-referenced (which is 2333:Wouldn't that just make it a vaguely defined 1677:Doesn't pointing out those articles actually 8: 1785:Canadian, we all understand by now what you 548:says the Sydney Opera House is Australia's. 2122:or a blog that says that the Taj Mahal is 2187:need to cite it; otherwise it is called 767:second source cited in this very article 527:So who decides what's a national icon? 1447:Again, and I'll emphasise this, it is 1389:would be to rename the article as the 1014:would have to define those landmarks? 7: 2393:I previously added that link to the 1476:(often colloquially referred to as " 1625:Your first question is answered by 1498:Fair enough, but you see my point. 1216:Bill Clinton "what is, is" argument 2273:as AfD is not the spot to discuss 1532:Here are the fruits of my search: 297:Canadian, there are two policies: 24: 1569:oh, and don't remove my comments 903:is a national icon, by the way. ( 1323:AfD discussion on Cultural icon 1243:List of Australian bird emblems 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1963:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy 884:Knowledge:No original research 771:Knowledge:No original research 1: 2397:article as the reference for 1606:Then tell me how the article 868:include man-made structures. 149:The problem here seems to be 1468:: from Knowledge article on 1126:I was actually referring to 2077:Refuting sources? Alright. 2647: 2603:- think it'll ever fly? - 2485:as the "national icon" of 2405:so it appears that humans 1839:21:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1808:21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1781:21:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1766:20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1732:20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1717:19:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1695:19:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1669:18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1640:18:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1621:18:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1602:16:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1566:16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1461:16:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1438:16:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1427:Cultural icons' nomination 1420:15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1406:14:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1353:11:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1335:10:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1310:05:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1275:05:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1251:List of Indian state birds 1228:04:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1168:04:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1122:03:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1087:03:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1053:02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1024:02:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 1000:02:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 976:01:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 950:01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 917:00:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 878:23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 829:01:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 807:00:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 733:23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 698:22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 646:23:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 623:23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 586:21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 558:05:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 538:04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 515:03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 496:01:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 485:01:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 463:00:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 452:21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 437:21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 417:03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 403:21:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 388:19:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 369:19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 335:of ignoring them. Thanks. 323:03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 293:19:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 278:19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 263:18:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 236:03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 200:18:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 177:18:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 163:18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 141:18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 2005:house. Again look at the 1249:, and, what do you know, 990:and other core policies. 611:Knowledge:Deletion policy 2622:Please do not modify it. 1247:List of U.S. state birds 545:says Banff is Canada's. 32:Please do not modify it. 2610:03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 2594:15:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 2582:10:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 2564:01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 2543:18:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 2522:01:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC) 2499:16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC) 2477:12:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC) 2462:04:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC) 2435:00:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC) 2420:20:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC) 2389:19:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC) 2347:14:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC) 2329:04:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC) 2308:01:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC) 2266:20:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 2201:20:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 2179:20:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 2156:19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 2140:19:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 2104:18:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 2073:18:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 2058:15:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 2046:publicly editable forum 2036:15:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 2000:10:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 1985:08:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 1957:18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 1939:18:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 1916:18:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 1901:18:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 1877:08:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 1855:23:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 1508:06:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 1494:02:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 775:Knowledge:Verifiability 345:20:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 61:07:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 2317:List of national icons 2081:is some bloke's blog. 1387:most sensible solution 1065:. 2. Have a look over 934:nothing original in it 815:would fit in with the 167:I will add citations. 2335:dictionary definition 1740:"? Because wikipedia 1260:all things considered 888:neutral point of view 785:Philadelphia Inquirer 760:) 2009-04-29 23:53:57 603:few or no other edits 250:Sydney Harbour Bridge 216:few or no other edits 2483:Jatiyo Smriti Soudho 605:outside this topic. 218:outside this topic. 2412:Delicious carbuncle 2360:being defined by a 2339:Delicious carbuncle 2279:User:Colonel Warden 2258:Delicious carbuncle 2126:a national icon of 1850:robe and wizard hat 1484:is spoken by 40%.-- 1395:HAVE A LOOK AT THIS 1305:robe and wizard hat 1061:, and, again, over 337:Delicious carbuncle 1627:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS 1327:Jonathan Oldenbuck 862:only national icon 854:Sydney Opera House 254:Sydney Opera House 44:The result was 2633: 2608: 2291:User:FeydHuxtable 2189:Original Research 2183:Actually yes you 2085:is a travel site 1967:Wiener dog racing 1853: 1754:ignoratio elenchi 1638: 1600: 1570: 1308: 811:Then tell me how 762: 748:comment added by 661:original research 606: 556: 536: 494: 461: 435: 219: 2638: 2624: 2607: 2356:Finally I found 2298: 2215: 2214: 2207:well cited facts 1847: 1637: 1599: 1575: 1568: 1393:national icons. 1302: 1007:Delete with fire 896:reliable sources 761: 742: 588: 555: 535: 493: 460: 434: 333:accusing editors 261: 205: 122: 116: 98: 34: 2646: 2645: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2627:deletion review 2620: 2296: 1867:Oh, yes it is. 1746:national symbol 1657:National emblem 1653:National symbol 1391:most recognized 743: 690:LinguistAtLarge 257: 118: 89: 73: 70: 54:national symbol 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2644: 2642: 2632: 2631: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2587:Keep and Clean 2584: 2566: 2545: 2524: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2310: 2268: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 1977:Colonel Warden 1972:eppur si muove 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1869:Colonel Warden 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1843:No, it's not. 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1672: 1671: 1661:Colonel Warden 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1530: 1529: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1385:. I guess the 1355: 1337: 1312: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1263: 1239: 1212: 1204: 1200: 1189: 1176: 1156: 1145: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1003: 1002: 979: 978: 955: 954: 953: 952: 923: 922: 921: 920: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 713:Indian Pacific 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 638:Chicagocubsfan 628: 627: 626: 625: 591:Chicagocubsfan 578:Chicagocubsfan 562: 561: 560: 540: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 444:Chicagocubsfan 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 395:Chicagocubsfan 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 265: 241: 240: 239: 238: 203: 202: 181: 180: 179: 129: 128: 69: 64: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2643: 2630: 2628: 2623: 2617: 2616: 2611: 2606: 2602: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2592: 2588: 2585: 2583: 2580: 2579: 2574: 2570: 2567: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2546: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2525: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2514: 2509: 2506: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2446:Strong Delete 2444: 2443: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2395:National icon 2392: 2391: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2366:national icon 2363: 2359: 2358:national icon 2355: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2311: 2309: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2300: 2299: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2283:User:Canadian 2280: 2276: 2272: 2269: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2256: 2252: 2249: 2248: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2120: 2116: 2111: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1973: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1889: 1886: 1885: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1856: 1851: 1846: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1825: 1824: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1701:National icon 1698: 1697: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1647: 1646: 1641: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1609: 1608:cultural icon 1605: 1604: 1603: 1598: 1594: 1593:NATIONAL ICON 1590: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1540: 1536: 1533: 1528: 1526: 1525:national icon 1521: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1445: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1428: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1383:NATIONAL ICON 1380: 1376: 1372: 1371:Kuwait Towers 1368: 1364: 1359: 1356: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1341: 1338: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1319:cultural icon 1316: 1313: 1311: 1306: 1301: 1297: 1294: 1293: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1261: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1237: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1208:WP:OTHERSTUFF 1205: 1201: 1198: 1197:WP:OTHERSTUFF 1194: 1193:WP:OTHERSTUFF 1190: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1177: 1175: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1043: 1042:Kuwait Towers 1039: 1035: 1030: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1008: 1005: 1004: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 985: 981: 980: 977: 973: 969: 965: 964:Kuwait Towers 960: 957: 956: 951: 947: 943: 939: 935: 931: 927: 926: 925: 924: 919: 918: 914: 910: 906: 902: 901:Carlos Gardel 897: 893: 892:verifiability 889: 885: 881: 880: 879: 875: 871: 867: 863: 859: 856:and also add 855: 851: 847: 843: 840: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 810: 809: 808: 804: 800: 796: 794: 788: 786: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 763: 759: 755: 751: 747: 740: 736: 735: 734: 730: 726: 722: 718: 714: 710: 706: 701: 700: 699: 696: 695: 691: 686: 682: 678: 673: 669: 666: 662: 658: 655: 654: 647: 643: 639: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 607: 604: 600: 596: 592: 587: 583: 579: 575: 571: 566: 563: 559: 554: 550: 547: 544: 541: 539: 534: 530: 526: 516: 512: 508: 503: 499: 498: 497: 492: 488: 487: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 466: 465: 464: 459: 455: 454: 453: 449: 445: 440: 439: 438: 433: 429: 426: 418: 414: 410: 406: 405: 404: 400: 396: 391: 390: 389: 385: 381: 376: 372: 371: 370: 366: 362: 357: 354: 346: 342: 338: 334: 330: 326: 325: 324: 320: 316: 312: 308: 304: 300: 296: 295: 294: 290: 286: 282: 281: 280: 279: 275: 271: 266: 264: 260: 255: 251: 247: 243: 242: 237: 233: 229: 224: 223: 222: 221: 220: 217: 213: 209: 208:173.7.181.118 201: 197: 193: 192:173.7.181.118 189: 185: 182: 178: 174: 170: 166: 165: 164: 160: 156: 152: 148: 145: 144: 143: 142: 138: 134: 126: 121: 114: 110: 106: 102: 97: 93: 88: 84: 80: 76: 75:National icon 72: 71: 68: 67:National icon 65: 63: 62: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2621: 2618: 2586: 2577: 2568: 2552:WP:LISTCRUFT 2547: 2530: 2526: 2511: 2507: 2445: 2406: 2402: 2361: 2353: 2312: 2303: 2301: 2294: 2270: 2250: 2210: 2206: 2184: 2123: 2109: 2086: 2045: 2041: 2022: 2018: 1970: 1944: 1931:FeydHuxtable 1893:FeydHuxtable 1887: 1845:Doctorfluffy 1826: 1794: 1790: 1789:the article 1786: 1749: 1678: 1648: 1629:. Also, see 1592: 1584: 1576: 1553: 1544: 1541: 1537: 1534: 1531: 1522: 1465: 1448: 1443: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1379:Eiffel Tower 1377:or even the 1375:Burj Al Arab 1363:Pablo Neruda 1357: 1339: 1314: 1300:Doctorfluffy 1295: 1254: 1235: 1186: 1182: 1173: 1152: 1149:subjectively 1148: 1140: 1135: 1128:WP:DIRECTORY 1070: 1028: 1011: 1006: 958: 933: 930:Pablo Neruda 899: 865: 861: 858:Capitol Hill 849: 845: 841: 813:Pablo Neruda 792: 784: 778: 766: 744:— Preceding 708: 704: 688: 683:as it is by 677:Tower Bridge 664: 656: 564: 469:gay marriage 427: 355: 267: 246:Weak delete. 245: 204: 187: 183: 146: 130: 45: 43: 31: 28: 1827:Strong keep 1683:contentfork 1585:who decides 848:, or maybe 793:Independent 779:already has 667:be ok (See 601:) has made 502:WP:DEADLINE 299:WP:PRESERVE 252:instead of 214:) has made 58:Flowerparty 2605:Biruitorul 2578:Greg Tyler 2487:Bangladesh 2362:government 2321:Ricky81682 2275:WP:CLEANUP 2007:Arab World 1635:Biruitorul 1597:Biruitorul 1466:Correction 1236:structured 1199:. I won't. 938:Taipei 101 721:Paul Hogan 681:Stonehenge 553:Biruitorul 533:Biruitorul 491:Biruitorul 458:Biruitorul 432:Biruitorul 380:Drawn Some 375:verifiable 285:Drawn Some 259:KuyaBriBri 188:verifiable 155:Drawn Some 2591:Unionhawk 2287:User:Ikip 2193:Ironholds 2148:Ironholds 2096:Ironholds 2050:Ironholds 1992:Ironholds 1949:Ironholds 1908:Ironholds 1724:Ironholds 1558:Ironholds 1543:Regiment. 1500:Ironholds 1453:Ironholds 1412:Ironholds 1211:subjects. 739:Uncle Sam 705:intention 529:This book 329:WP:BEFORE 303:WP:BEFORE 244:(e/c x2) 133:Ironholds 2535:Robofish 2469:Canadian 2427:Canadian 2399:Vegemite 2381:Canadian 2378:Illinois 2297:Schmidt, 2171:Canadian 2132:Canadian 2065:Canadian 2028:Canadian 2013:and the 1773:Canadian 1709:Canadian 1613:Canadian 1589:WP:SYNTH 1554:anything 1480:"), and 1430:Canadian 1398:Canadian 1132:WP:SYNTH 1106:WP:IINFO 1077:enough. 1059:WP:SYNTH 1045:Canadian 968:Canadian 942:Canadian 870:Canadian 821:Canadian 758:contribs 750:Canadian 746:unsigned 717:Vegemite 599:contribs 570:Istanbul 477:Canadian 473:abortion 361:Canadian 270:Canadian 169:Canadian 147:Comment' 125:View log 2374:Britain 2354:Comment 2023:notable 1738:synonym 1577:Comment 1486:Buster7 1478:Flemish 1470:Belgium 1373:or the 1367:Merlion 1358:Comment 1345:Collect 1315:Comment 1255:it adds 1179:WP:NPOV 1038:Merlion 1029:Comment 988:WP:NPOV 959:Comment 909:Uncle G 842:Comment 817:Merlion 799:Uncle G 795:article 787:article 725:Uncle G 685:Big Ben 657:Comment 615:Uncle G 92:protect 87:history 2601:WP:FLC 2569:Delete 2556:Spiesr 2548:Delete 2531:mostly 2448:: Per 2370:source 2251:Delete 2167:source 2163:source 2119:source 2115:Source 2092:WP:SYN 2087:anyone 2019:unique 1795:prefer 1750:should 1631:WP:SPS 1482:French 1340:Delete 1296:Delete 1110:WP:NOT 1075:WP:NOT 1063:WP:NOT 984:WP:NOT 905:source 719:, and 574:Web.de 428:Delete 327:Ikip, 311:WT:AFD 307:WP:ARS 184:Delete 151:WP:NOR 120:delete 96:delete 50:WP:NOR 46:delete 2573:WP:OR 2491:Ragib 2454:Ragib 2450:WP:OR 2255:WP:OR 2211:cited 2128:India 2015:abaya 2011:thobe 1791:could 1787:think 1581:WP:RS 1474:Dutch 1067:WP:RS 1034:Proof 894:from 850:three 791:this 783:this 709:alone 665:might 123:) – ( 113:views 105:watch 101:links 16:< 2571:per 2560:talk 2539:talk 2527:Keep 2518:talk 2508:Keep 2495:talk 2473:talk 2458:talk 2431:talk 2416:talk 2385:talk 2343:talk 2325:talk 2313:Keep 2289:and 2281:and 2271:Keep 2262:talk 2197:talk 2175:talk 2152:talk 2136:talk 2110:just 2100:talk 2083:this 2079:this 2069:talk 2054:talk 2042:that 2032:talk 1996:talk 1981:talk 1953:talk 1935:talk 1912:talk 1897:talk 1888:Keep 1873:talk 1835:talk 1831:Ikip 1804:talk 1800:Dahn 1777:talk 1762:talk 1758:Dahn 1728:talk 1713:talk 1705:Verb 1691:talk 1687:Dahn 1665:talk 1655:and 1649:Keep 1617:talk 1562:talk 1504:talk 1490:talk 1457:talk 1444:race 1434:talk 1416:talk 1402:talk 1349:talk 1331:talk 1271:talk 1267:Dahn 1224:talk 1220:Ikip 1172:RE: 1164:talk 1160:Dahn 1136:need 1118:talk 1114:Ikip 1083:talk 1079:Dahn 1049:talk 1040:and 1020:talk 1016:Dahn 996:talk 992:Dahn 972:talk 946:talk 913:talk 890:and 874:talk 866:only 825:talk 803:talk 789:and 773:and 754:talk 729:talk 694:Talk 642:talk 619:talk 595:talk 582:talk 565:Keep 511:talk 507:Ikip 500:Per 481:talk 471:and 448:talk 413:talk 409:Ikip 399:talk 384:talk 365:talk 356:Keep 341:talk 319:talk 315:Ikip 301:and 289:talk 274:talk 232:talk 228:Ikip 212:talk 196:talk 173:talk 159:talk 137:talk 109:logs 83:talk 79:edit 2513:DGG 2407:are 2337:? 2124:not 1945:not 1685:)? 1679:add 1108:in 1071:not 1012:who 846:two 687:. — 679:or 2562:) 2554:. 2541:) 2520:) 2497:) 2475:) 2460:) 2433:) 2418:) 2387:) 2345:) 2327:) 2264:) 2253:- 2199:) 2191:. 2185:do 2177:) 2169:. 2154:) 2138:) 2130:. 2102:) 2071:) 2056:) 2034:) 1998:) 1983:) 1955:) 1937:) 1914:) 1899:) 1875:) 1837:) 1806:) 1779:) 1764:) 1756:. 1730:) 1715:) 1693:) 1667:) 1619:) 1564:) 1506:) 1492:) 1459:) 1451:. 1436:) 1418:) 1404:) 1351:) 1333:) 1273:) 1245:, 1226:) 1166:) 1153:on 1141:is 1120:) 1085:) 1051:) 1022:) 998:) 986:, 974:) 948:) 940:. 915:) 907:) 876:) 827:) 805:) 797:. 756:• 731:) 715:, 692:• 644:) 621:) 613:. 597:• 589:— 584:) 576:. 513:) 483:) 450:) 415:) 401:) 386:) 367:) 343:) 321:) 309:. 291:) 276:) 256:? 234:) 206:— 198:) 175:) 161:) 139:) 111:| 107:| 103:| 99:| 94:| 90:| 85:| 81:| 56:. 2558:( 2537:( 2516:( 2493:( 2471:( 2456:( 2429:( 2414:( 2383:( 2376:, 2341:( 2323:( 2260:( 2195:( 2173:( 2150:( 2134:( 2098:( 2067:( 2052:( 2030:( 1994:( 1979:( 1951:( 1933:( 1910:( 1895:( 1871:( 1852:) 1848:( 1833:( 1802:( 1775:( 1760:( 1726:( 1711:( 1689:( 1663:( 1615:( 1560:( 1502:( 1488:( 1455:( 1432:( 1414:( 1400:( 1347:( 1329:( 1307:) 1303:( 1269:( 1222:( 1162:( 1116:( 1081:( 1047:( 1018:( 994:( 970:( 944:( 911:( 872:( 823:( 801:( 752:( 727:( 640:( 617:( 593:( 580:( 509:( 479:( 446:( 411:( 397:( 382:( 363:( 339:( 317:( 287:( 272:( 230:( 210:( 194:( 171:( 157:( 135:( 127:) 117:( 115:) 77:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/National icon - Knowledge

Index