RockMagnetist (talk | contribs) keep |
del |
||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
*'''Keep''' [[list of vegans]] and [[list of vegetarians]]. The rationale in the deletion proposal, and most of the arguments for deletion, have nothing to do with the accepted [[WP:DEL#REASON|reasons for deletion]] in Wikipedia's deletion policy. An exception is [[WP:NOTDIRECTORY]], which does merit some consideration. Are these people "loosely associated"? I think the answer comes from many of the same sources that support [[WP:LISTN]] (see the footnotes I have added to the top of [[List of vegetarians]]). These sources identify various vegetarians and vegans ''and'' talk about the significance to them - why they adopted it, how it has affected their lives. That is what should be included, not the irrelevant information that {{U|Deacon Vorbis}} rightly objects to. But that's a matter for the talk page. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 04:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' [[list of vegans]] and [[list of vegetarians]]. The rationale in the deletion proposal, and most of the arguments for deletion, have nothing to do with the accepted [[WP:DEL#REASON|reasons for deletion]] in Wikipedia's deletion policy. An exception is [[WP:NOTDIRECTORY]], which does merit some consideration. Are these people "loosely associated"? I think the answer comes from many of the same sources that support [[WP:LISTN]] (see the footnotes I have added to the top of [[List of vegetarians]]). These sources identify various vegetarians and vegans ''and'' talk about the significance to them - why they adopted it, how it has affected their lives. That is what should be included, not the irrelevant information that {{U|Deacon Vorbis}} rightly objects to. But that's a matter for the talk page. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">[[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]]([[User talk:RockMagnetist|talk]])</span> 04:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
* '''Delete (all)''' per [[WP:BLP|BLP]] and [[WP:WWIN|WWIN]]. These are a "dietary choices" that have been sourced from a single point in time. However, diets and lifestyles are susceptible to being changed at any point during a life (without getting media coverage to notify the world). Since [[WP:BLP]] requires we use the highest grade of reliable sources and ''not'' write something wrong about people, then these lists present a unique maintenance challenge for ensuring that the information is correct at all times. Hint: No one is checking each entry on a regular basis to ensure that the information is still correct, and it's highly unlikely you could even find out that someone was ''no longer'' being a vegetarian (or vegan or pescatarian) because that is not news. |
|||
:The lists also don't have much value even as trivia. If there were a few select people who were unbelievably veggers, such as ''current'' athletes (because ordinary people such as myself find it unbelievable that real athletes wouldn't eat meat), then they could be presented in, say, the vegan article. But no one cares if an actor or musician or other ordinary folk is a vegger. Per [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information|What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information]] and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections]], we are cautioned against inclusion of trivia or content that has no context. |
|||
:These lists have no cohesion to the collection; these people are as diverse a group as you can probably get. The lists are, in my opinion, simply a lengthy collection of names for the purpose of veg advocacy. These people aren't notable for their dietary choice. There are a ''few'' people who are well-known for being vegans, but most of the people on these lists are obscurely-veggers. I made the same argument at AfD for [[List of veterinarians]] which contained a huge list of people with veterinarian training that weren't known for that part of their life. Lax, indiscriminate inclusion criteria devalue a list, making it less useful and less interesting. Since its inception, these vegger lists have indiscriminately included all persons who ever once mentioned they had that dietary choice, with no evaluations on whether someone is notable for, known for, such. This violates [[WP:LISTN]] or is simply just weak/indiscriminate selection criteria... which leads back to WWIN (a collection of trivia). And what someone eats IS trivia for the majority of the persons on these lists. At least an early version of the vegetarian list ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vegetarians&oldid=2305208 2004]) was more interesting, mentioning a bit about each person or quotes of what they wrote, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vegetarians&oldid=4472028 within six months] had lost most of its interesting bits. |
|||
:I vote to delete, predominantly because good BLP practices ''cannot'' be maintained for these lists. Selection criteria is a fixable problem; the BLP is not. |
|||
:— [[User:Normal Op|Normal Op]] ([[User talk:Normal Op|talk]]) 08:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:02, 26 September 2020
List of vegetarians
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of vegetarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While the general topic of vegetarianism is certainly notable, there is no encyclopedic value to collating a list of the people we have articles about who have made some sourceable comment somewhere, sometime indicating that they are or were a vegetarian. Virtually no one on this is list is notable for being a vegetarian. It's almost never a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (although there are undoubtedly occasional exceptions). This list further has columns for "occupation" and "country", but these have nothing to do with being a vegetarian either. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm also nominating
- List of vegans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of pescetarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
for the same fundamental reasons. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename to List of notable vegetarians. Speaking informally, yes, I knew that Mohandas Gandhi was a vegetarian, but Voltaire - I had no idea. I do not see any reason whatsoever why such information can not be provided as a list to readers who are interested in the subject of Vegetarianism. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- WP:LISTNAME recommends avoiding words such as "notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc." The name is concise and compliant with the MOS, and this is an AfD discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This isn't a move discussion. We also don't declare people "notable" in Wikivoice; see MOS:NOTED. It's Wikipedia jargon, and it has no business in article titles. As for the rest of your comment, this list provides no information about vegetarianism to a reader who's interested in it, other than "some people are vegetarians". None (or very very few) of these people are actually notable for being vegetarians. (Ditto the other noms). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oh no, it does provide interesting information about vegetarianism, namely the list of famous people (aka celebrities) who followed this tradition. This is an interesting information for anyone who would like to look at the subject of vegetarianism. Same about many other subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Again, no, it doesn't provide any information about vegetarianism other than "some people are vegetarians". I find a lot of things interesting that don't necessarily warrant articles (lists or otherwise) on Wikipedia. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry to disagree, but Mohandas Gandhi, Voltaire and other historical personalities being vegetarians or vegans are important facts that do belong to encyclopedia. Making a list is a good way to present such information. But my time is up, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Again, no, it doesn't provide any information about vegetarianism other than "some people are vegetarians". I find a lot of things interesting that don't necessarily warrant articles (lists or otherwise) on Wikipedia. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oh no, it does provide interesting information about vegetarianism, namely the list of famous people (aka celebrities) who followed this tradition. This is an interesting information for anyone who would like to look at the subject of vegetarianism. Same about many other subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking formally, one should check Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists. It tells Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. That one certainly was discussed in RS in that way, there is even a book "Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today". My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Also, keep List of vegans. This is a significantly different subject/list related to animal rights. This is not just a selection of food, but an ethical position (and for many vegetarians as well). Would you suggest to delete a List of abolitionists? My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- If it was an indiscriminate list of everyone who once said "slavery is bad", then yes, I would. If it's a list of people who were notable for being abolitionists, then no. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a list of people who said "slavery is bad", but a list of people described in RS as abolitionists. Same with other lists. Some of them are mostly known for something else, not for being abolitionists. That does not matter. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The list is well sourced. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Being well-sourced isn't sufficient for keeping, and it wasn't even brought up in the nomination rationale. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Is it correct procedure to nominate 3 articles for deletion but direct them into 1 single afd discussion? I have not seen this done before. The afd list of vegans and pesecetarians seem to now direct here to this discussion but all are unrelated separate articles. This is a mess and may confuse readers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the nominator should fix it. They think the subject is the same, but it is not. My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's one possible option; see WP:MULTIAFD. These are similar enough I felt bundling was appropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)−
- Veganism and Vegetarianism are different pages and subjects, and for a good reason. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Vegans used to be listed as part of the List of vegetarians article but were split out. Therefore List of vegans is technically a sub-list of the List of vegetarians. Any AfD for List of vegans needs to be considered alongside the List of vegetarians. For example, if there were a consensus to delete the List of vegans then that would essentially amount to a merge in a practical sense, if the List of vegetarians still existed. And if the list was deleted on notability grounds would this prohibit splitting the list again on the basis of size? In other words, the point I am making is that the fate of both articles really need to be determined together otherwise you could arrive at contradictory outcomes. In that sense I favor discussing all three articles together. Betty Logan (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Veganism and Vegetarianism are different pages and subjects, and for a good reason. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep all three Each list is or can become well-sourced. However, I have constant concerns that a fly-by-night entertainer courted by PETA gets as much listing as Adam Schiff or Cory Booker. Further, I would keep for a number of reasons other than that the position is an ethical position, but that point ought to be more deeply considered by detractors. MaynardClark (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- You haven't actually said why we should keep them, and sourcing isn't really the main concern. On a side note, why should politicians get any more airtime then other entertainers? Schiff has a one-sentence
"Schiff is a vegan."
with no other context in his article. Even the source used just mentions it in the briefest of passing. If anything, that just goes to show how indiscriminate of a list this is. What possible difference does it make it some random athlete happened to mention they were vegetarian or vegan in an interview once? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- You haven't actually said why we should keep them, and sourcing isn't really the main concern. On a side note, why should politicians get any more airtime then other entertainers? Schiff has a one-sentence
- Keep: List of vegans was nominated in August 2019 and was judged Keep by a 13-0 consensus. What has changed in the last 12 months that would suggest there would be a consensus to delete it now? I would also suggest to the nominator that responding to every single keep vote and reply posted so far feels like WP:BLUDGEON behavior; if your argument is strong, you shouldn't have to respond six times in the first two hours of the nomination. I would suggest taking a step back, to allow other editors to look at the article and the sources, and arrive at their own decisions. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- I understand about the bludgeoning, and I generally try to avoid it, but not every case of thorough replying is bludgeoning. In this case, there were a number of subsequent keep votes that had no substance, and I don't think it's totally unreasonable to press for more there. But still noted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- ... But you do see the irony of replying to me, right? Everyone who bludgeons thinks that they're investigating votes with no substance. A person with a strong argument is confident enough to allow other people to challenge the insubstantial votes. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm responding to your criticism of my behavior (from which I was directly addressed), not your !vote. There's no irony there any more than there is when you dismiss my self-defense against bludgeoning by calling it more bludgeoning. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- ... But you do see the irony of replying to me, right? Everyone who bludgeons thinks that they're investigating votes with no substance. A person with a strong argument is confident enough to allow other people to challenge the insubstantial votes. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- I understand about the bludgeoning, and I generally try to avoid it, but not every case of thorough replying is bludgeoning. In this case, there were a number of subsequent keep votes that had no substance, and I don't think it's totally unreasonable to press for more there. But still noted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all three:
- Agree with nominator that the article's lack of encyclopedic value is based on the fact that people don't attain notability for being vegetarians: If each of the members of the list isn't notable on the basis of teh subject of the list, then the entire list as one unit lacks notability.
- In addition, being vegetarian isn't like being, say, Black: i.e., we have, for example, a List of black Academy Award winners and nominees and we have a List of Latino Democrats because Black and Latino are attributes intrinsic to a person (they are born with them), as opposed to vegetarianism, something people can practice today but abandon tomorrow. In this sense, this List of vegetarians would be like creating a List of men married to women named Mary. Compare such useless lists to List of black Academy Award winners and nominees and List of Latino Democrats, lists that depict static, non-changing attributes.
- Also, List of vegetarians is non-notable. This is why we don't have a "List of meat-eaters"? Such lists are frivolous.
- Also, we don't need lists like these because we already use WP:Categories to fulfill the need to track people who were notable for X reason but then also happened to be vegetarians, for example, Paul McCartney and John Harvey Kellogg (both members of the Category:Vegetarianism activists) or, additional categories can be created, such as [[Category: Vegetarian singers]] and [[Category: Vegetarian doctors]], to track such vegetarian people.
- Having a list like List of vegetarians is somehwat akind to attributing notability to a someone solely on the basis of being a writer: a person is hardly ever notable for being a non-fiction writer - you become notable as a professor of biology who, as a by-product, also wrote a book about Biology of dead organisms, or you become notable as a historian who, as a by-product, also wrote a book about the History of the Appalachia, or you become notable as a poet who, as a byproduct, also wrote an Anthology of Byzantine poems, etc. That is, just writing a book doesn't suddenly make you notable: you must have made some significant contribution to biology, history or poetry first and become notable on that basis. This is one reason why we don't have articles like List of murdered Americans.
- An additional basis for deletion is WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "To provide encyclopedic value...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
- At best, if kept, the list should include only those people who are notable primarily for being vegetarians, like Herbert M. Shelton, Lewis Gompertz, and Claire Loewenfeld, as opposed to being notable in some other field but also happened to be vegetarian. But, frankly, the distinguishing lines here can be so subjective as to making even such limited list, potentially, an exercise in futility.
- Mercy11 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well, just a few comments.
- The criteria for inclusion to lists and categories are always happened to be. A protein can be included to the list of proteases just because it happened to be a protease, not because it is a notable protease. You say: "people don't attain notability for being vegetarians". Yes, sure, most of them did not, but the inclusion to a list does not require anyone to be notable specifically as a member of a list. This is because an item can belong to several different lists or categories. For example, a protein can be a protease and a membrane protein. Is it notable for being a protease or a membrane protein? No, it was simply described as such in RS. Is it "important" or "characteristic" for a protein to be a protease or a membrane protein? Yes, simply because it was described as such in multiple RS. Same about people. Is it "important" or "characteristic" for a person that he/she was a vegan? Yes if he/she was described as such in multiple RS and was self-identify as such. Same would apply to Latino, etc.
- One should also check Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists. It tells "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. That one certainly was discusseed in RS in that way, there is even a book "Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today".
- "Black and Latino are attributes intrinsic to a person (they are born with them)". I always thought that "More generally, these demographics include all Americans who identify as Hispanic and/or Latino (regardless of ancestry)" - as our page Hispanic and Latino Americans tells. So, this is not an attribute "intrinsic to a person".
- "List of Latino Democrats, lists that depict static, non-changing attributes." What?? Consider a Democrat who becomes later a Republican (or vice versa), a member of Green Party, whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- That you MVBW -- good eye! Although my focus was on the intrinsic nature of one's race/ethnicy, and not non-intrinsic nature of one's political party affiliation, my argument is most brilliantly made with my additional illustration above of List of black Academy Award winners and nominees. I am hopeful you did understand that was my point. Thanks for teh observation. Mercy11 (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Keeping this was always an error, and one I find hard to understand. It's not characteristic or important that someone was a vegetarian. It can be and often is charactertic and important and well worth a list that somebody is a vegetarian advocate. The list fails to distinguish. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all three. Agreeing all the points Mercy11 mentioned. Also, why being a vegetarian or vegan considered a better thing? Who judges that? If you feel List of Meat eaters is absurb, this is exactly same as that. Also, vegetarianism and animal rights are two totally different aspects. Don't connect each other to prove any importance. - The9Man (Talk) 09:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all three. Per WP:IINFO, it is not encyclopedic to give lists of people who revealed in an interview once that they had adopted a certain lifestyle choice. We wouldn't have an article List of people who bicycle to work. NightHeron (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Listing people by diet is not a good idea in my opinion. For example, there are entire cultures where vegetarinism is the standard.★Trekker (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. The nom incorrectly cites a guideline standard WP:DEFINING that only applies to categories; it does not apply to lists. Nor is there a requirement that someone be notable “for” something in order for it to be listed. postdlf (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY: whenever I see lists like this I find that these notable people should best be mentioned in a history article, like history of vegetarianism in this case, with context on their impact in the field. If they are WP:UNDUE there it may be for their biography. If it's not due there either there's nothing encyclopedic to write about. Moreover, we have categories for this, like Category:Vegetarianism activists... —PaleoNeonate – 14:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with Mercy11's arguments. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: The topic of vegetarianism is a minority position and therefore it is prone to WP:WPDISCR by editors who do not adhere to requirement of NPOV. The repeated nomination of these pages shows discrimination and bias against these topical lists of people by minority dietary and ethical stance taken. All these lists should be kept as useful encyclopedic tools and not deleted. BrikDuk (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- You're an active member of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism
and you accuse others of not adhering to NPOV? Like, really? - The9Man (Talk) 19:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- @The9Man: What exactly are you saying here? Could you spell it out? Why are you objecting to another user's involvement in a WikiProject? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- You're an active member of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism
and you accuse others of not adhering to NPOV? Like, really? - The9Man (Talk) 19:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete this WP:IINFO along with List of meat-eaters. ::Rolleyes:: jps (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I don't believe that List of vegetarians and List of pescetarians should be grouped with List of vegans here, since the first two are primarily a dietary position while the other is an ethical/moral stance, and thus the two discussions should be separate. I don't think the same arguments work for both. Osario (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, certainly. They have been discussed separately at the previous AfDs, with nearly all participants voting "keep" for the list of vegans. The results of previous AfDs for the list of vegetarians were less convincing. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This is an indiscriminate list of people by diet choices when diet choices can change a lot. The reasons for various diet choices are complex, and there is no reason to treat people making these diet choices as unified groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The dominant mainstream culture shows bias and discrimination against vegetarians, a minority group, and one common such way is by treating vegetarianism and veganism as purely a choice about diet and food when that is false. Vegetarianism is both an ideology and a movement and therefore as such is much distinguished from Weight Watchers, Atkins, gluten-free diets. Because of vegetarianism's ethical, religious, and social movement components it has articles not just for vegetarian cuisine but also too articles for vegetarianism, environmental vegetarianism, and vegetarianism and religion. Vegetarianism is not merely a dietary choice. All vegetarians are joined by shared beliefs that many not every time be the same but as such distinguish them as a definable group and movement. BrikDuk (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Really?? Vegetarians have extremely diverse motives: health, animal rights, environment, religion, or some combination of two or more of these. To say that they have "
shared beliefs that...distinguish them as a definable group
" makes no sense. What "shared beliefs" are there between a Jain and an overweight American celebrity who's heard that a vegetarian diet is a great way to lose weight? NightHeron (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Really?? Vegetarians have extremely diverse motives: health, animal rights, environment, religion, or some combination of two or more of these. To say that they have "
- Good point. Personally I am not a vegetarian, but this is certainly not just a diet, but an ideology and a movement (especially vegans) related to refusal to killing animals. This is an argument to keep the list. My very best wishes (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Not encyclopedic? Please see Encyclopedia Britannica, the Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism or the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. These lists clearly pass WP:LISTN and that's what matters here, not some irrelevant ideas about categories. See also WP:CLN, which explains how categories are inferior to lists and WP:DELAFD which explains that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as above. I also want to draw attention to Osario's comment. There's potentially a lot of scope for separating veganism from pescatarianism in that veganism is often seen as something a lot more central to someone's identity. It's certainly not just (to quote someone above) "a diet choice". (I can provide some references if needed.) Even if there is good reason to delete the list of pescetarians (and I'm not saying that there is), that need not mean that there is good reason to delete the list of vegans. I'm concerned about the fact that these articles have been bundled together. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all per Mercy11. The Britannica article is a list of the 8 most famous vegetarians; I could see us having something like that as a category, or perhaps a section in an article about vegetarianism or the history of vegetarianism (undoubtedly there are some people for whom being a vegetarian was/is a defining characteristic), but this is basically a WP:NOT violation as explained by others above. (Same rationale for the other two.) Lev!vich 21:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep list of vegans and list of vegetarians. Three reasons, following WP:LISTN/WP:SAL: First, there's plenty of coverage of lists of notable vegetarians/vegans as a group. Second, there are many people on each list who are indeed notable for their vegetarianism/veganism in the sense that there are multiple sources which talk about it beyond mentioning it off-hand. Third, it could be a reasonable navigational list. None of this is to say the lists should remain as-is, but refining inclusion criteria or rethinking organization (or even pruning and merging if it wouldn't be unwieldy) can be handled on the talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep list of vegans and list of vegetarians. The rationale in the deletion proposal, and most of the arguments for deletion, have nothing to do with the accepted reasons for deletion in Wikipedia's deletion policy. An exception is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which does merit some consideration. Are these people "loosely associated"? I think the answer comes from many of the same sources that support WP:LISTN (see the footnotes I have added to the top of List of vegetarians). These sources identify various vegetarians and vegans and talk about the significance to them - why they adopted it, how it has affected their lives. That is what should be included, not the irrelevant information that Deacon Vorbis rightly objects to. But that's a matter for the talk page. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete (all) per BLP and WWIN. These are a "dietary choices" that have been sourced from a single point in time. However, diets and lifestyles are susceptible to being changed at any point during a life (without getting media coverage to notify the world). Since WP:BLP requires we use the highest grade of reliable sources and not write something wrong about people, then these lists present a unique maintenance challenge for ensuring that the information is correct at all times. Hint: No one is checking each entry on a regular basis to ensure that the information is still correct, and it's highly unlikely you could even find out that someone was no longer being a vegetarian (or vegan or pescatarian) because that is not news.
- The lists also don't have much value even as trivia. If there were a few select people who were unbelievably veggers, such as current athletes (because ordinary people such as myself find it unbelievable that real athletes wouldn't eat meat), then they could be presented in, say, the vegan article. But no one cares if an actor or musician or other ordinary folk is a vegger. Per What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, we are cautioned against inclusion of trivia or content that has no context.
- These lists have no cohesion to the collection; these people are as diverse a group as you can probably get. The lists are, in my opinion, simply a lengthy collection of names for the purpose of veg advocacy. These people aren't notable for their dietary choice. There are a few people who are well-known for being vegans, but most of the people on these lists are obscurely-veggers. I made the same argument at AfD for List of veterinarians which contained a huge list of people with veterinarian training that weren't known for that part of their life. Lax, indiscriminate inclusion criteria devalue a list, making it less useful and less interesting. Since its inception, these vegger lists have indiscriminately included all persons who ever once mentioned they had that dietary choice, with no evaluations on whether someone is notable for, known for, such. This violates WP:LISTN or is simply just weak/indiscriminate selection criteria... which leads back to WWIN (a collection of trivia). And what someone eats IS trivia for the majority of the persons on these lists. At least an early version of the vegetarian list (2004) was more interesting, mentioning a bit about each person or quotes of what they wrote, but within six months had lost most of its interesting bits.
- I vote to delete, predominantly because good BLP practices cannot be maintained for these lists. Selection criteria is a fixable problem; the BLP is not.