Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish national identity

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 08:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish national identity

POV essay, unencyclopedic, unverified and unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Made redundant by many (better) articles including Politics of Scotland, Culture of Scotland, History of Scotland, Scottish Nationalism, Walter Scott and, bizarrely, Loch Ness Monster. IslaySolomon 11:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge to Culture of Scotland, since we already have better articles on the topic. Recury 14:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be less than a mess than Scottish people, and most claims appear verifiable. RandomP 14:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• If the article contains original research or is non-neutral, then take this, this, this, this, this, this, and this (and the book by Donald Dewar which discusses scottish national identity that it cites) for starters; and, with sources to back you up, go and make the article better. Deletion doesn't do that. Keep. Uncle G 14:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (after edit conflict) And I'm sure, using those sources, you could produce a very thorough and engaging piece of work with the title "Scottish Nation Identity". But it would be an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. People's personal feelings on unionism/nationalism or Scottishness/Britishness are a matter of the Politics of Scotland and the extent to which Scottish people identify with traditional Scottish symbols is a part of the Culture of Scotland.

The title of this article is far too broad and open to interpretation and I think it will always end up either repeating reams of content from other articles or it will become original thought, drawing its own conclusions. At present it seems to do a little of both.

Incidentally, Donald Dewar's remarks about the Scottish national identity in A Lifetime of Opportunity seem to have related to his feelings on the political climate of Scotland in the late 1990. I think they'd be better referenced in Politics of Scotland or in fairly slender article on the man himself.--IslaySolomon 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the article as it stands is a mess, but it is a valid topic. BTLizard 17:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - OK, so the article really ought to be improved (esp. refs) and expanded, but hey, we can say that about 99.9% of Wikipedia articles. It is certainly a valid encyclopaedic topic, and a very interesting and complex one at that. --Mais oui! 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the Oxford Companion to Scottish History has eight pages on national identity, making it one of the longest articles in the book. If the contributors to that can write an encyclopedic article on Scottish national identity, so can we. If someone writes a snappy introductory paragraph or two expanding on the idea that Scottish national identity formed over the past millennium and has not always been the same as it is today, I'll fill in the tedious detail. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Angus McLellan, no need to say more. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Angus McLellan, a notable subject we should provide coverage on. Yamaguchi先生 23:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Valid topic. POV and WP:V issues should not go through AfDs. JASpencer 10:29, 23 September 2006 (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.