The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Wales[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among Stereophonics, Ospreys rugby, and the Government of Wales Act of 1998. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Back in my day, there used to be these international relations articles (like this one) that everybody was gung-ho about deleting. It seems that a similar phenomena is in play here. What the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland AFD shows us is that there is no consensus on these articles. It seems to me that rather than listing all these cultural icon articles for deletion, it would be more pertinent to have a WP:RFC over this issue or maybe a discussion could be opened up in a applicable wikiproject? Seems counterproductive to have all these articles listed, with the end result being more than likely "no consensus". Just my 2 cents. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Several others like this have been kept. No reason to delete this one. United States Man (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.