Deletion of List of fictional Scots

Comment: this list meets the criteria for ist. All the tedious arguments in AfDs on Lists that a category is sufficient makes me think that  is written in some foriegn language, unintelligible by those opposed to lists.  The subject of this list is notable, the entries are notable and sourced and  is much too thin and broad a brush to paint here. Nothing ''Indiscriminate'' in this one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L||WP:CLN||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: and reference better and add context. The nominator's reading of  would preclude any list from being formed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: per nom, per lack of  of the concept, per  and . Nom is right that categories also always better than such lists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:NOTDIR||WP:SALAT)

Comment: I can see the argument for fictional Jews being an encyclopaedic cross-categorisation - the influence of Shylock and Fagin has clearly reverberated through society to influence how people came to see Jews.  And you can't really describe them as being part of Jewish literature - quite the opposite! But the Jews are something of a special case. It's hard to argue that James Bond has had the same infuence on perceptions of Scottishness (or Swissness for that matter). In fact you could probably say that the main influence on such perceptions has been the treatment by artists of "real" Scots  such as Wallace, Macbeth and the Young Pretender. And I'd argue that they have no place in a list of fictional Scots, because they really did exist. So I wouldn't say it is a totally non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation, but at best it's a very weakly encyclopaedic cross-categorisation - and that should be set against the facts that this list is very open-ended, a bit of a nightmare to maintain, and the function is already served by the category. There are also issues with defining "Scotland", particularly when you go back to Macbeth, a Pict who was brought up in an independent mormaerdom of Moray before seizing control of the "foreign" kingdom of Alba. Even then, he had tenuous control of the Borders and had the Highlands occupied by the Norse. I'd also suggest that assuming TV/film characters are Scottish based solely on their accent is tantamount to  unless they self-identify as Scots or the cameras show us their birth certificates
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per , which '''''clearly''''' applies to more than lists about commercial products.  The meaning of  can indeed be ascertained by reading it, which some people have obviously not done, or done in an overly selective manner.  Specifically, I'm referring to items 1 and 6 of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: Precedent seems to have established that List of fictional Fooians type lists are not appropriate on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of ones where Fooians in fiction can be shown to be an encyclopedic topic. This is in accord with our policies on |verifiability and |original research, and guidelines on |notability and |stand-alone lists. Without any indication that Scots in fiction is an encyclopedic topic, this list can only ever be an non-encyclopedic cross categorization: ie. an intersection of things with attribute A and things with unrelated attribute B
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:N||WP:STANDALONE)

Comment: as  a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization per . A category would work fine
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: per  and {{user|Ben MacDui
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: per ,  and . We've had AFD debates on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders|List of fictional New Zealanders and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Armenians|List of fictional Armenians, both which resulted in a strong consensus to delete (links are to the debates). This is clearly a |pointy creation in an attempt to legitimise your opinion on the matter. This isn't a useful navigational list, and could be adequately replaced by a category
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:SALAT||WP:IINFO||WP:POINT)

Comment: a simple, straightforward, and notable topic, and I see no valid or substantive arguments for deletion.  The claims that this violates  as an "unencyclopedic cross-categorization" are contradicted by many of the same commenters, who have stated that an article on fictional Scots generally would be notable and acceptable.  I fail to see how a list of examples of an encyclopedic topic could be unencyclopedic.  Further, some claiming this is a nonencyclopedic cross-categorization have incredibly stated that the same topic would be nevertheless acceptable :Category:Fictional Scottish people|''as a category''.  The only valid concern I see here in any of the deletion comments is that the list may be indiscriminate, but on that I point there has not been any substantive discussion, only the nom's unelaborated opinion.  So I am not convinced that the list is inherently indiscriminate and that no threshold or inclusion criteria could be adopted or maintained
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: per  point 1 and 6 (loose association, unencyclopedic cross-categorization). Inclusion criterion puts together completely unrelated fictional works (and media), is completely arbitrary (what does MacBeth have to do with Groundskeeper Willie?). Why is Shrek on the list when he's not actually Scottish, just has the accent? To prove the pointlessness of the list by the absurd, would one consider making a similar list for fictional Americans?--Special:Contributions/70.80.234.196|70.80.234.196
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)