My very best wishes (talk | contribs) →List of vegetarians: this is so misguided |
Deacon Vorbis (talk | contribs) →List of vegetarians: c'mon; it's not that difficult Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
*'''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]]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:17, 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]]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 01:26, 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. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 01:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
*:{{ec}} 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 {{em|for}} being vegetarians. (Ditto the other noms). –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 01:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
*:{{ec}} 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 {{em|for}} being vegetarians. (Ditto the other noms). –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 01:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
Line 24: | Line 23: | ||
*:::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. –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 01:57, 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. –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|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. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 02:39, 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. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 02:39, 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". [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk: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]]? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:49, 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]]? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk: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. –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 01:57, 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. –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 01:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:07, 25 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)
- 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)
- 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)