Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegans (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegans[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Quite frankly an instance of listcruft. One specific person's diet doesn't tend to be a prominent trait. Wikipedia isn't supposed to just compile trivia like this per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:LISTCRUFT is not a policy and WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not a catch-all for things that someone doesn't like. The previous discussion was a Keep and the nomination does not address that consensus. As the topic obviously passes WP:LISTN and it's still our policy that Wikipedia is not censored, the nomination should be dismissed as frivolous. Andrew D. (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy keep" is WAY too hasty, and so is your "the nomination should be dismissed as frivolous" remark. This has nothing to do with liking/not liking matters. How in the world does this meet WP:LISTN when any citations used are more for confirming an individual's diet than collectively discussing groups of vegans? The "not policy" bit also feels like a cop-out. As for the previous AFD, its outcome disregarded how trivial one's eating habits are. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some further procedural points. Firstly, the nomination was initially made using the PROD process. That is specifically for uncontroversial deletions but this page has existed for over 15 years, has about 700 citations and over 2,000 editors. Secondly, neither the PROD nor this nomination were notified to the page's creator or any other contributor. The idea was presumably to nominate the page for silent deletion and hope that no-one would notice. Flouting WP:BEFORE and common courtesy on such flimsy grounds seems quite disruptive. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARTICLEAGE is irrelevant to whether something would be a controversial deletion or should be kept. Same goes for the number of editors. Not sure what to say on citation count. Anyway, the PROD was done because I hadn't noticed any prior AFD (which was my mistake). One also is not required to notify others of deletion, it just is often encouraged. There actually wasn't anything disruptive about the nomination. I simply was looking to delete an article that didn't appear to be warranted, and fully expected others to notice that it was being considered for deletion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose the nominator doesn't care that the page gets about 500 readers each day and so has had over a million readers in the last few of those years. So, in that view, all those thousands of editors and hundreds of thousands of readers count for nothing and so it would be uncontroversial to make the page just go away without notification or discussion. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. My view remains that such behaviour is quite disruptive and my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POPULARPAGE with regard to page views. A better basis for something being a controversial or uncontroversial deletion would be the content itself and any prominence it might have. How many readers an article attracts is a moot point on keeping or deleting it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULARPAGE states that "article popularity is likely to correspond with some form of notability which should then be straightforward to verify". In other words, it's a good clue. Andrew D. (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely to correspond" is NOT the same thing as a guarantee something should be kept, and "should then be straightforward" isn't a synonym for "is straightforward". The more important part I was trying to get at was how it reads just because an article is popular does not mean it is within the project scope. Perhaps I should've been more explicit before. Anyway, this is because the views don't affect what the content itself contains or the quality/depth of its accompanying citations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, this "speedy keep" nonsense has to come to an end. You are beginning to make me think you are not competent to understand that the clearly defined, very narrow criteria listed at WP:CSK apply to hardly any, if not none, of the AFDs where you !vote this way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've had the full seven days now and notice that there's not been a single !vote to delete the page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We previously deleted the category structure that corresponded to this list, though category inclusion is far more strict than for lists so that isn't dispositive in and of itself. There is no doubt that the practice of veganism is notable, or that this is verifiable information for many notable individuals. So the question is the informational value of compiling it for such individuals together. It is something that tends to be noted within an individual's article as it is an uncommon practice, though unless they are an activist or particularly outspoken about it there usually wouldn't be much to say about it. postdlf (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree practice itself is notable enough for its own article as you've linked to. What I don't agree with is editors simply adding vegan diets into people's articles solely because they can source that. It goes against WP:NOTADIARY. Because of your "unless they are an activist or particularly outspoken about it there usually wouldn't be much to say about it" comment, it would be best to only mention it in the pages of individuals who are in fact vegan activists and maybe those who are highly outspoken on the matter. This oftentimes isn't the case for specific persons. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no prohibition on including facts in articles just because we can't elaborate on it, and from what I've seen I think you're often going to be on the losing side on inclusion as it's being decided case by case for individual articles. Just speaking practically, the approach that this fact shouldn't even be mentioned anywhere for most people is going to serve as a polarizing distraction from the merits of this list, and that's all this AFD is here to decide. postdlf (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point with WP:NOTADIARY is that not every detail on a person is worth mentioning. That page says "news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary". As for this list, it seems to only include vegans just because they're verified to go by the diet. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can I just say this list was conceived as a sub-article of List of vegetarians. If the decision is made to delete this list then the entries should be re-integrated back into List of vegetarians, because currently vegans are not actually logged at the mother article despite being vegetarian. Betty Logan (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personal diets tend to change and morph over a lifetime. Even when a source reports they are vegan it is temporal in nature. The list should reflect this somehow, that it is a list of people who at one time reported a vegan diet. Diff. -- GreenC 17:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An individual's veganism is often made a point of in media, so the list is hardly a trivial collection of random facts, and it is comparable to List of animal rights advocates. Inclusion criteria for who is on the list is clearly defined. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of sources treat this topic as a group, lots of people consider it a defining characteristic, and it seems easy enough to source. No opinion at this point as to its relationship to the list of vegetarians. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but restrict to covering Westerners in the article. India has more vegetarians than the rest of the world put together so being an Indian vegetarian isn't particular notable/differentiating (Edelstein, Sari (2013). Food Science, An Ecological Approach. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Page 281. ISBN 978-1-4496-0344-1. “...India has more vegetarians than everywhere else in the world combined.” ). There are several compelling reasons to keep the article in Wikipedia. First and foremost, it definitely is made a point of in the media and this is not going to change. Veganism is very ecofriendly and a lot of journalists feel passionate about the environment. Plus, it is notable to the press because vegans stand out from the norm. If you don't think being a vegan makes you stand out, try attending a family Thanksgiving dinner as a vegan. Second, the medical/nutritional community is stacking up evidence that a plant based diet is healthier and we live in a celebrity culture where celebrities exert a lot of societal influence and for better or worse there is a high interest in celebrities. The article has racked up 25,000 views in the last 60 days for example. Knox490 (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Knox490: this article is about vegans, so the № of vegetarians in India is not really an issue. --Nessie (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion is a matter for the talk page to resolve, not us here, but if it's unremarkable where someone is from it is also unlikely to be stated specifically about them in a source. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many reliable sources and many vegans themselves consider veganism to be a defining characteristic. The inclusion criteria are well-defined and changes to the list itself are monitored and promptly policed. As for restricting it to Westerners, because so many Indians are vegetarian, that is a red herring (or plant-base herring substitute), as few of those Indian vegetarians are actually vegan. Edwardx (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't speedy keep No strong opinion on what to do with the page, but I would encourage the closer to disregard any bad-faith "speedy keep" !votes, unless they take the form of WP:SNOW remarks and come after dozens of "keep" !votes and no "delete" !votes save the OP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sjakkalle. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the list is well-referenced, easy to read, and very popular. Veganism is a set of beliefs, and not just a diet. It is just as much a defining trait as one’s political affiliation or religion. --Nessie (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As defining as political/religious beliefs? Not sure I'd go so far to say that unless we're talking about vegan activists. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people don't have strong political/religious beliefs. Instead they may be passionate about their lifestyle. By the way, veganism can also be political. And I'd like to reiterate that veganism is not a diet. People should read the definition or the guidelines first before starting a discussion. Do people also try to delete the list of atheists because they are believers?User:GeneralArmorus 7 September 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RS Also: Knox490 has a good point regarding non-westerner vegans. Lightburst (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson, Betty Logan and WP:IDLI. Miniapolis 13:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People get coverage for this aspect of them. Dream Focus 16:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand nominator's rationale and I too would prefer an encyclopedia to not have articles on such a great number of lists but since the current policies of Wikipedia allow the contrary, we should keep and improve them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - although there is not a specific guideline for this list, I think some principles apply - Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists says, "Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion or on sexual orientation" citing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - WP:CAT/R says, "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate." WP:BLPCAT says "these principles apply equally to lists" - so to have a list of vegans we have to confirm that living people have publicly self-identified as vegans and that for dead people there are reliable sources confirming that they were vegan - also, because vegan is a dietary choice, living people can change their minds and adopt other diets; how will the list be maintained to ensure that those listed are still vegans? - Epinoia (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sjakkalle. SunnyBoi (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2019 (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.