Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (4th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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 no consensus. We still do not have widely accepted inclusion criteria for lists (WP:LISTN notwithstanding), and it shows here. People do not agree on the applicable inclusion criteria for these lists. Sandstein 14:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegetarians

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Veganism and Vegetarianism are different pages and subjects, and for a good reason. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    ... 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Delete all three:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Also, List of vegetarians is non-notable. This is why we don't have a "List of meat-eaters"? Such lists are frivolous.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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."
  7. 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)[reply]
Well, just a few comments.
  1. 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.
  2. 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".
  3. "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".
  4. "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[following comment by Historyday01 moved from insertion in the middle of Mercy11's comment above, in response to "3. Also, List of vegetarians is non-notable..." -Ed.]
I disagree with this assessment. How is being a vegetarian not notable in and of itself? Most of people, especially in Western societies, are meat-eaters, with vegetarians in the minority. Just look at a recent survey by the Vegetarian Resource Group, which commissions surveys on the topic every year. While over half of the U.S. population "always or sometimes eats vegetarian (including vegan) meals when eating out," only 6% call themselves vegetarian, half of whom call themselves vegan. I support limiting the list, but I think it should still exist, as it is still a notable characteristic compared to the general population. In some countries, yes, there are many vegetarians, but are nowhere close to the majority. A push for vegetariansm and veganism has become akin to a social movement. As Mandy Meyer of WTVOX put it, "the number of vegans in the world is on the rise. We see significant pro-veganism movements in Western countries, Eastern Europe, Australia and Israel. Moreover, as cultures and landscapes change for the better, veganism has started to gain momentum in Latin America, Asia, and Africa as well." Additionally, many vegans and vegetarians return to meat-eating, making the number of people who stay vegan and vegetarian smaller as well. These are both reasons that this topic is notable. Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • I disagree with this rationale. Keeping this list is important. If you wish to limit the list by specific criteria, that is a discussion which should be limited to the talk page of the article, rather than in an AFD.Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That logic, like the others who want to delete this article, makes little sense. I see no issue with people saying in interviews that they are vegetarian. Would you rather cite tweets or instagram posts instead? Interviews are fine secondary sources. Unlike a list of people who bicycle to work, vegetarians are notable in and of themselves due to the fact they are clearly not the majority in any society of any of the countries on Earth. Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vegetarianism is more than just a diet. As it states on the Vegetarianism page, "...many people object to eating meat out of respect for sentient life. Such ethical motivations have been codified under various religious beliefs, as well as animal rights advocacy. Other motivations for vegetarianism are health-related, political, environmental, cultural, aesthetic, economic, or personal preference." That alone shows it is more than just a diet and just flipping off a light switch. Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from, but I still feel that the list has value. If you'd like to limit the page, then discuss that on the talk page rather than on this AFD. The talk page seems like the proper place.Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Mercy11's arguments. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@J Milburn: I have no idea how you end up with the interpretation that I am opposing their involvement in a Wikiproject! I was just pointing out why they are accusing others of not adhering to NPOV while they favor a point of view as well. - The9Man (Talk) 09:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The9Man: I'm afraid I'm still not following. There is no requirement that any member of WikiProject Vegetarianism and Veganism favour any particular point of view -- members don't have to be vegans/vegetarians, for instance, just as members of (say) WikiProject Socialism don't need to be socialists. (There may be a certain amount of self-selection; no doubt, similarly, there are lots of feminists in WikiProject Feminism.) BrikDuk raised concerns that editors are not adhering to the NPOV guidelines, and you objected to the suggestion, seemingly on the grounds that BrikDuk is a member of the WikiProject. But now you tell me that you have no idea how I felt you were objecting to their membership in the WikiProject. I ask again: what exactly are you saying here? I'm afraid I am lost. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: BrikDuk accused that others are not adhering NPOV and I asked him why they assume that while they also 'seem' to not doing the same. I extend my apologies to @BrikDuk: for 'assuming' that if they feel offended. 'Objected' is the wrong use of wording altogether, I didn't object to do anything.
If you are still not following me? That's absolutely fine. Since this is not constructively helping this AfD in any way, I won't be responding this to any further unless if BrikDuk have something to say. Let's use our time better for the project. - The9Man (Talk) 06:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not seeing why you think that BrikDuk does not "seem" to be adhering to NPOV -- the only "evidence" you have provided, as far as I can see, is that they are a member of a WikiProject, which is not really evidence at all. You suggest that this conversation is not helping the AfD. Maybe that's true, but I'm not going to apologise for asking for you to explain on what basis you are accusing others of (seeming) misconduct. (If objecting was the wrong word, so be it.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of meat-eaters literally isn't a page, so this argument doesn't hold water.Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, my point sailed right over your head. The argument holds water precisely because there "literally" isn't a page. jps (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, this argument does not hold water. This is just a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT for you.Historyday01 (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Perhaps the list can be limited, but not having a page for vegetarians seems wrong. If there can be a List of animal rights advocates, a List of people influenced by Ayn Rand, a List of anarchist musicians, a List of fictional anarchists, and many other Lists of people by ideology, then why not have lists for vegans, pescatarians, and vegetarians.Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
— Normal Op (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The mainstream news media often and with regular frequency report on notable people who are no longer vegetarians. It is one of the ways dominant culture will use to try and best downplay significance of vegetarian movement and try to prove by that it is a diet and not a longstanding social movement of today and to ancient history. Members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism actively watch articles that include information regarding that a subject is vegetarian. This information in articles is modified or removed if reported in reliable news sources of that person no longer being part of vegetarian social movement. BrikDuk (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrikDuk: Notable (currently) to news media and notable (once ever) to Wikipedia are two entirely different uses of the word "notable". A once-notable person, who was granted an article in WP based on that old criteria, may no longer be of interest to news media. I doubt seriously that news media cares about 90% of the people on these lists and they wouldn't bother to report if any of them "started eating meat". Let's use a little common sense here; this list cannot be maintained to any standards required by BLP. And you using such language as "downplay significance of vegetarian movement" cements my viewpoint that this list is the cruft of advocacy editors. Normal Op (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion would be better served if arguments focused on notability and the inclusion criteria. Poor sourcing is not a justification for deletion: it can be fixed through more rigorous enforcement, so it's a non-issue. Likewise, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and therefore not expected to deliver up-to-the-minute developments. I suppose if somebody's status as a vegetarian/vegan is notable then it is still notable if they cease to be one. If Paul McCartney decided to tuck into a Big Mac I would argue that his vegetarianism is still notable since it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources. On the other hand, I think you can reasonably question the value of including somebody like James Franco on the list. The lists may amount to trivia but considering that Hitler makes an appearance I really don't think vegetarian advocacy is an accusation that holds water. Betty Logan (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Betty Logan: Don't re-frame my post as a "poor sourcing" issue. My point was that you cannot keep up with it, not simply that no one is maintaining the list often enough. Arguing NOTNEWS as your excuse for poor reporting or late corrections to content is irresponsible and violates BLP. I don't mean to say that vegetarianism is advocacy, I mean that the creation of this list is part of veg advocacy amongst Wikipedia editors. And I stand by my viewpoint that someone's dietary choice IS trivia; only advocates who wish to present veg diets as common and mainstream rather than an alternative see such a veg label as non-trivial. One common element I've found amongst all "ethical veggers" is that they believe everyone else should be, too, and refuse to see that it is NOT a choice of the majority. The veg movements may have expanded beyond FRINGE, but they are still a minority. Realize that and you can see that this list IS trivia and its presence in WP IS advocacy; both adequate reasons to delete these lists. Normal Op (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS is not an excuse, it is a guideline. It is not Wikipedia's mandate to record the latest developments because it is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Notability is supposed to be enduring so it is irrelevant if someone if someone has stopped being vegetarian. Per my example, if Paul McCartney stops being vegetarian his vegetarianism is still notable. And as for not being able to "keep up" with the sourcing, that is clearly not accurate: all the entries are sourced. If they are not properly sourced that has no bearing on notability. I am actually trying to help you strengthen your arguments here: when this discussion is closed the closer will assess the discussion purely on grounds of notability and whether the list is indiscriminate, not on whatever sourcing issues you think it may have. Betty Logan (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is a vegger, and why are you contrasting "veggers" to "ordinary people"? It's perhaps no wonder that people are raising concerns about these articls not being given a fair hearing. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn: Vegger is merely a word I coined to save me from having to type "vegetarian, vegan and/or pescetarian". Normal Op (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you should avoid "coining" words to refer to members of minority groups. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Especially when you insist on contrasting members of the group(s) in question to "ordinary people". Interesting that you chose to ignore that question. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite a stretch to claim that an entire list of people, many of whom are dead, violates WP:BLP - especially since every entry has at least one source. If a source is problematic and there is reason to think that the associated entry will be challenged, a better source can be requested or the entry can be removed. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RockMagnetist: Re-read my comments, which include the FACT that maintenance of the list in terms of removing still-alive people from the list is impossible, therefore it can, and always will, violate BLP guidelines. I'm not saying putting someone on the list in the first place (with citation) is a violation of BLP, what I'm saying is that this list cannot be effectively maintained, and that that violates BLP. It's a shortcoming of this list that cannot be solved (except for the dead people, who won't be changing their dietary choices). Normal Op (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason these articles were submitted for deletion was because of another afd discussion on Transcendental Meditation. Transcendental Meditation is a crackpot topic. You can see the comments on that afd on 23 September 2020 where several users then compared that article to this one. The mistake here is to confuse veganism/vegetarianism or pescetarianism with "fringe" or crackpot ideas. I noticed a few users who voted delete are regulars on the Fringe theories noticeboard. About 50 ago you could argue that vegetarian, pescetarian or vegan diets were "fringe", but that is no longer the case. In the last 20 years mainstream health agencies, charities, organizations and healthcare systems, for example British Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, British Heart Foundation, American Institute for Cancer Research, NHS, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, National Academy of Medicine etc have all pretty much recommended a semi-vegetarian diet to the public. Each one of these agencies or organizations has published articles on their websites telling people to avoid eating red or processed meats because they increase the risk of heart disease and cause bowel cancer. Indeed you can see posters like this [1] on the American Institute for Cancer Research website and articles on the NHS website [2], these sort of facts are what pescetarians, vegetarians and vegans have been claiming for years. So yes the research has now gone mainstream and is supported by robust scientific evidence. Even the Cancer Council website of Australia advices people to eliminate processed red meats from their diet and instead "Try a vegie pattie burger, vegetable lasagne, tofu stir fry or a falafel wrap" [3]. The scientific consensus has shifted to a semi-vegetarian diet and is heading towards a plant-based diet. Consumption of poultry has been linked to increased risk of heart disease [4]. The consensus in the next 10-20 years will be to eliminate all or nearly all red and white meat from the diet. The EAT Lancet is currently investigating this sort of thing. Certain users are thus mistaken to conflate vegetarianism/veganism/pescetarianism with "fringe" ideas. These ideas are now "ordinary" in diet, nutrition and medical research. I do indeed believe there is a bias to want to have these lists removed because of the false association with crackpottery (for example, the list of vegetarians is now on its 4th deletion nomination). Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No. This was brought to my attention by way of another AfD as an analogy (where I notified in a reply to the person who did so; maybe I should have indicated that in my nomination statement, but hopefully it was normal enough), which was itself brought to my attention from a discussion at FTN. No one has claimed that this is a fringe topic in any way, shape, or form. None of your long post extolling the benefits of a vegetarian diet has anything to do with why I claimed this list should be deleted. I make absolutely no claim that there's anything fringe about this (nor do I even think so), or about any of the pros or cons of vegetarianism itself. This is only about the indiscriminate nature of this as a Wikipedia list article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Psychologist Guy: Correct, the veg-isms are no longer FRINGE, but they ARE in the minority and are NOT mainstream. My crystal ball is broken, but yet you declare "The scientific consensus has shifted to a semi-vegetarian diet and is heading towards a plant-based diet" and "The consensus in the next 10-20 years will be to eliminate all or nearly all red and white meat from the diet." What you have described are semis... neither vegetarianism nor veganism. Semi isn't it. Doctors et al have been advocating "eat less red meat" for a very long time; still not vegetarianism or veganism. Normal Op (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normal Op has repeated a rather absurd interpretation of BLP above that would actually prevent us from having any content about living people, the honestly ridiculous claim that our articles must continually keep pace with what is factually true even if not reported: “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...” We satisfy BLP by providing reliable sources for claims made about living people. If something has factually changed since that RS was published, we would only know about it and would only be able to update the article with that change if a subsequent RS supported it. If no RS reports it, BLP remains satisfied so long as our article is supported by what has last been reported. That’s true regardless of the nature of the claim. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Postdlf: Re-read my coments and responses above, which include the FACT that maintenance of the list in terms of removing still-alive people from the list is impossible, therefore it can, and always will, violate BLP guidelines. I'm not saying putting someone on the list in the first place (with citation) is a violation of BLP, what I'm saying is that this list cannot be effectively maintained, and that that violates BLP. It's a shortcoming of this list that cannot be solved (except for the dead people, who won't be changing their dietary choices). Combine that with the fact that someone's dietary choice is TRIVIA (unless they are a known advocate for vegging), and you have a list built upon ADVOCACY that is prone to BLP violations. Normal Op (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understood you, and your interpretation is not valid. There is no “duty of continuous investigation” in BLP to keep ensuring that some circumstance cited to an RS has not changed since it was published. Ironically the only other time I’ve seen anyone make that claim was to say we shouldn’t continue to describe anyone as “living” unless we continue to have new sources asserting that. Unworkable and absurd from either angle. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Normal Op, if someone's dietary choice is trivia, why are you so worried about someone being temporarily mis-labeled as a vegetarian or vegan? As the policy says, there are hundreds of thousands of articles of articles on living persons, and "it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles". What it doesn't say is that we can't possibly keep all these articles up to date, so we shouldn't have them. Anyway, there is nothing defamatory about calling someone a vegan, especially if they actually were at some point in their lives. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable but indiscriminate I certainly think we should endeavor to hold biographical information to the same standard across the board, regardless of how harmless the claim is. What I am troubled by is this issue of keeping things "up to date". For me this goes to the heart of the problem with these lists: they are clearly notable but they are indiscriminate. The problem is caused by treating vegetarianism as a status rather than a characteristic of somebody's notability. For example, Hitler's vegetarianism has been extensively discussed, but would we scrub him from the list if it were confirmed he ate liver dumplings for his last supper? Paul McCartney's vegetarianism has extended into activisim and business interests; if he gave it up tomorrow would his vegetarianism cease to be notable? On the other hand I can't see why it matters for somebody like James Franco, who simply is vegetarian but it doesn't characterise his notability in any way. If he ceased to be vegetarian there would be no point in mentioning it all. In other words I would expect a featured article to cover the vegetariansm of Hitler and McCartney but not Franco, and whether they are or not currently vegetarian is besides the point. I think it is this kind of perspective that these lists should offer. At the moment they do act as a kind of "super category". I think it is the indiscriminate nature of the lists—rather than their notability—that is the root of the problem. Betty Logan (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Betty Logan. I agree that someone should be known for their vegetarianism to qualify for entry on such a list; not simply a list of everyone who ever mentioned it once. The weak/inclusive inclusion criteria makes for a list of trivia; the well-defined strict criteria would make such a list interesting. Normal Op (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There may indeed be grounds for improving the inclusion criteria, but that's an issue to discuss on the article talk page, not an AfD. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would help to resolve the AfD if it came to a consensus about what the actual problem is though. Solutions usually become obvious once the actual problem is nailed down. Betty Logan (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: On Talk:List of vegetarians, I have proposed that the table format be disbanded and information on each entry emphasize the significance of vegetarianism for that person instead of forcing contributors to give the occupation and country. I don't have any great ideas for a better selection criterion. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea posed by @RockMagnetist is a good one. I fully support limiting the list, but deleting it as the OP proposes would be a bad idea. I do not understand why this AFD was necessary. If the OP had issues with the page, why didn't they discuss it on the talk page? Historyday01 (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think its worth adding more sources to this page and that should be worked on, but I would say that it is notable enough to keep. I similarly think that the List of pescetarians should be kept as well for similar reasons.Historyday01 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, a valuable list resource with long-time reader usage and interest, and per discussion. I'm surprised that Wikipedia doesn't have a policy or guideline that once a page passes three deletion attempts that it is "safe" from further deletion discussion. Fourth attempt? Forgetaboutit. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: These lists do have encyclopedic value. Specifically to people who are interested in the topics of vegetarianism, veganism and animal rights. One does not need to be notable, for being vegetarian, in order for the knowledge that a person is or was to have value. Leonardo da Vinci certinly isn't notable because he was a vegetarian. However, the fact that he was one certinly does have encyclopedic value. The idea that these list have no encyclopedic value is baseless and unsubstantiated. Zippy268 (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: all three. per nom and Mercy11.   // Timothy :: talk  16:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all This is something notable about them, sources cover it, it a perfectly valid navigational list. Dream Focus 16:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep list of vegans and list of vegetarians, agnostic on list of pescatarians. While not many people are notable or prominent due to their vegetarian or vegan diet, vegetarian and vegan diets are a sufficiently important topic and often an important part of the life stories of those individuals. This isn't always the case, such as someone who just went vegetarian based on a doctor's advice in their 60s for heart disease risk, but it is enough the case for so many people that the list is warranted. I think the list of pescatarians is a less obvious decision. There is no prominent pescatarian social movement. Not many notable people see it as important for their identity. I could go either way. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY as non-encyclopedic cross-categorization and per nomination. Hekerui (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This good faith nomination should be withdrawn because it is heavily based on Wikipedia:Defining which itself is solely about categories. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Rebuttal to comments above:
  • “nomination should be withdrawn because it is heavily based on Wikipedia:Defining which itself is solely about categories.”
Comment: The nomination is supported by a mix of WP:PG. Following are some of the PG's this list violates: WP:IINFO, WP:OR, and WP:LISTCRIT, yet the word “category” isn’t mentioned even once in any of them. It also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY because it is a “List …of loosely associated topics”. Most notably, ”there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.” These people are neither associated with vegetarianism nor contributed to the topic of vegetarianism. Their only "association" is that they are vegetarians themselves, just like a List of Little League patrons. The people in this list are associated with whatever occupation, under the “Occupation” column made notable, and not with vegetarianism or any of the others. Otherwise we could have a List of Levy jean wearers as well.
  • “it does provide interesting information about vegetarianism, namely the list of famous people (aka celebrities) who followed this tradition.”
Comment: In this case, how about creating a List of celebrities who were meat-eaters, that is, a list of famous people who followed the meat-eating tradition?
Comment: Yes, that one should be deleted also. There is, in particular, no reason for that list to include people who, like Maria Grazia Giammarinaro, were born after slavery had already been abolished worldwide, since "slavery" has a very specify meaning in people's mind.
  • “Is it correct procedure to nominate 3 articles for deletion but direct them into 1 single afd discussion?”
Comment: Yes, because all 3 lists fall under WP:IINFO, and that’s reason enough to group them. If there was also a List of people who bicycle to work plus a List of men who married women named Mary, then all 5 can be grouped in the same AFD because all 5 fall under the same WP:IINFO.
  • “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.“
Comment: The "Fallacy of composition” – ”Because a protein can be added to the list of proteases just because it happened to be a protease, and not because it is a notable protease, then people can be added to the List of vegetarians just because they happened to be vegetarians, not because they are notable vegetarians,” which would make most people on the list red-linked.
  • “there is even a book ‘Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today’.”
Comment: The “Proof by example” fallacy – ”If there were no books written about vegetarians, it would be a non-notable list, but since there is 1 book written, then it must be notable.”
  • “How is being a vegetarian not notable in and of itself? Most of people, especially in Western societies, are meat-eaters, with vegetarians in the minority... it is still a notable characteristic compared to the general population.”
Comment: In this case, why not also create a separate, stand-alone List of former vegetarians? That would a be a list of notable people who became vegetarians, but then left the practice to become meat-eaters again. After all, such list would, also, be in the minority of the minority and, following that logic, such micro-minority ought to be even more notable yet in and of itself.
  • “These are both reasons that this topic is notable.”
Comment: These are both reasons that the topic on vegetarianism is notable, and the reason why no one has put an AFD on Vegetarianism. This AFD here is on List of vegetarians, not on the very valid topic of Vegetarianism.
  • “[there IS a no] requirement that someone be notable “for” something in order for it to be listed.”
Comment: No? Please see WP:N, which determines outright whether or not an article on individual x can or cannot exist. Or, forgive me, perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps what was said meant that anyone can add their names to the list, simply because they are vegetarians (redlinked), as opposed to already being notable for something unrelated to vegetarianism (bluelinked). In this case that implication/suggestion would appear to be that it’s OK for the list to grow into the, perhaps, millions of names (most of which will be redlinked).
  • “The repeated nomination of these pages shows discrimination and bias against these topical lists of people by minority dietary and ethical stance taken.”
Comment: The “Affirming the consequent” fallacy – ”Because it has been repeatedly nominated, then its nominators must be biased” (much like, “If the room is dark, then the lamp must be broken,” without considering that a dark room could instead be the result of the lamp not being plugged in, etc.)
  • ”Yes, certainly [they should be discussed separately]. They have been discussed separately at the previous AfDs, with nearly all participants voting "keep" for the list of vegans.
Comment: The "Historian's fallacy" – ”Because they were discussed separately before, then it’s only right for them to be discussed separately now.”
Comment: The "Faulty generalization" fallacy – ”Because all of those other exist, then this one must exist also.” Or, in plain English, we don’t have a List of fish rights advocates, List of people influenced by Jesus Christ, or List of anarchist engineers, either.
  • “this is certainly not just a diet, but an ideology and a movement”
Comment: Vegetarianism may be an ideology and a movement, but this AFD isn’t proposing to delete the articles on Vegetarianism, Veganism, and Pescetarianism. This AFD is proposing deletion of List of vegetarians, List of vegans, and List of pescetarians.
Comment: No, they don’t pass WP:LISTN because, with the exception of Encyclopedia Britannica, the rest are books about Vegetarianism -- not books about vegetarians. This AFD is about a List of vegetarians (and the other 2 lists in question). In case of the Britannica exception, the Britannica list is a list of 8 people not the 700+ people currently in the list being AFD’ed.
  • ”[And see also] WP:DELAFD which explains that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.”
Comment: No, WP:DELAFD doesn’t say just that, and the statement above was cherry-picked. What WP:DELAFD says is, “After a deletion debate concludes and there is no consensus or the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page….It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.” That’s what it says. As follow-up, some digging in shows that List of vegetarians was last AFD’ed on 2 April 2008, or, over 12 years ago. List of vegans was last AFD’ed on 31 August 2019, or, over a year ago, and List of pescetarians has never been AFD’ed before. The “reasonable amount of time to pass” requirement has been met in all three cases.
  • ”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.”
Comment: There is a good reason to delete all 3 because all three (1) lack encyclopedic value: there is nothing notable about a person being a vegetarian, (2) are trivial: there is nothing particularly notable about them as a group, other than they chose that lifestyle, (3) fail WP:N (think why we don't have a List of meat-eaters), (4) are lists that would serve a purpose if they were List of Vegetarianism activists, List of Veganism activists, and List of Pescetarianism activists, but not as a simple list of vegetarians; the list is useless other than as WP:PROMO advocacy, (5) there is no notability on being a vegetarian by itself, anymore than there is in being a biker-to-work life-style adopter, (6) the list falls under WP:IINFO, and (7) the list fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING because it has grown to just a list of people who are notable for something else, who also just happen to be vegetarians.
  • “it could be a reasonable navigational list.”
Comment: The "Appeal to probability" fallacy – ”Because it may be needed by someone at some point in the future, it should be kept.”
  • “An exception [to the claim that “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”, would be] WP:NOTDIRECTORY…”
Comment: WP:NOTDIRECTORY sure is a valid criteria for deletion of a list, and does apply here because this loosely associated list of notable people have no other tie than they happened to pick the same life-style, religious-practice, etc. This is why we don't a have a list of notable people who are also boaters, List of boaters.
  • “The mainstream news media often and with regular frequency report on notable people who are no longer vegetarians. It is one of the ways dominant culture will use to try and best downplay significance of vegetarian movement…”
Comment: The "False dilemma" fallacy – “Because you are damned if you do [include a “list of former vegetarians”], and you are damned if you don’t [include it]”: if it’s not included, then those proposing the list be deleted are also labeled as being anti-vegetarian movement people for not reporting on those who abandoned the practice. So the mainstream media is to be blamed (just like those proposing the list be deleted) if they report (700+ times) on people who are vegetarians and it is also to be blamed if they report on people who are no longer vegetarians (aka, "have the cake and eat it too").
  • “The lists may amount to trivia but considering that Hitler makes an appearance I really don't think vegetarian advocacy is an accusation that holds water.”
Comment: The "Inappropriate generalization" fallacy – ”Because if someone as detestable as Hitler is included, then the lists couldn’t possibly be the work of vegetarian advocacy group.”
  • “The mistake here is to confuse veganism/vegetarianism or pescetarianism with "fringe" or crackpot ideas.”
Comment: This isn’t an assault on Veganism, Vegetarianism or Pescetarianism; this is an assault on List of vegetarians, List of vegans or List of pescetarians.
  • “There may indeed be grounds for improving the inclusion criteria, but that's an issue to discuss on the article talk page, not an AfD.”
Comment: No, this is not an issue for a Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS because a major tenet of the Encyclopedia is being violated: namely, WP:LISTCRITERIA, prompts editors to ask:
  • “Would I expect to see this person on a list of [Vegetarians]?”
  • “Is this person a canonical example of some facet of [Vegetarianism]?”
Since these people wouldn’t be expected to be found in other publications for their Vegetarianism, but for their contributions under the “Occupation” column of the table, the guideline at WP:STANDALONE isn’t being followed. Likewise, since these people are not canonical examples of some facet of Vegetarianism, they don’t belong together in this list. In the sense that these individuals were grouped together into a list, without any other RS grouping them together into a list, the list is, in addition, a violation of WP:OR.
  • “a valuable list resource with long-time reader usage and interest.. I'm surprised that Wikipedia doesn't have a policy or guideline that once a page passes three deletion attempts that it is "safe" from further deletion discussion.”
Comment: “Valuable resource” isn’t an WP:inclusion criteria. Notability is. And, yes, there is a guideline regarding number of deletion attempts, it’s called WP:Consensus can change. Since WP:CCC, the number of deletion attempts is unlimited.
  • ”These lists do have encyclopedic value. Specifically, to people who are interested in the topics of vegetarianism, veganism and animal rights.”
Comment: Again, this AFD isn’t about vegetarianism, veganism and animal rights, but about people who follow that practice. This list is tantamount to a List of Trump supporters, List of Satan worshippers, etc.
  • “This is something notable about them”
Comment: Sure, being a vegetarians is something notable about them; that’s why their vegetarianism is discussed in their own articles. However, there is absolutely nothing to tie them as a group and thus nothing to bring them together into a list. This is why it’s called an indiscriminate list. Mercy11 (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bazinga! All your points are spot on! Most pertinent one, in my opinion: "as opposed to already being notable for something unrelated to vegetarianism (bluelinked)". Right, the people on these lists aren't notable for being vegetarians; they're notable for something else and their vegetarianism is trivia. If the list were only comprised of people who were notable for their vegetarianism, then that might be interesting to read. Normal Op (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do believe that's the first time I've ever seen a thorough bludgeoning done in a single edit. Lost me at affirming that the same principles you're arguing would also support deletion (not editing, not splitting, not tightening the criteria for) of list of abolitionists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not only are most there people not at all notable for their at times short-lived dietary choices, some of them either stopped embracing these diatary choices before they became notable, or only embraced them long after they faded from the public eye.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure that what you're saying is correct. I've not, as far as I can recall, edited the vegetarian/pescetarian lists. But the vegan list doesn't list just anyone who was at one time vegan, but (in the case of living people) people who are currently vegan. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are my 24 responses to Mercy11, reformatted:
  • response to comment #1: Any issues with this page should be discussed on the talk page, not here.
  • response to comment #2: That would be an indiscriminate list which would violate Wikipedia's rules. This list does not.
  • response to comment #3: That list is just as notable as this list. Again, if the list should be limited, it should be discussed on the talk page. Why do people think AFDs can solve problems which can be solved with a discussion on the talk page?
  • response to comment #4: Again more false arguments, which all boil down to you not liking this page and the ones also connected to this faulty nomination.
  • response to comment #5: The point they are trying to say is that this topic is notable and they are right. Proof by example is not a Wikipedia rule and is a badly sourced article, so it does not apply here, with the talk page of that article questioning the article itself.
  • response to comment #6: A list like that, however, would likely become a battleground of sorts, violating WP:NOSALESMEN, saying "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, draftspace, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages." As such, a page like that would make no sense.
  • response to comment #7: Its good that no one has done a AFD on vegetarianism, but as I've said before, the issues raised in the AFD could discuss the issues on the talk page rather than a AFD. Having an AFD is just extreme.
  • response to comment #8: Specifically, WP:GNG says that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list," and this list fulfills that completely.
  • response to comment #9: Again, this fallacy is not a wikipedia rule.
  • response to comment #10: I would say, actually, that talk page is the best place to discuss the issues, not here
  • response to comment #11: I was making the point that this topic is notable, by noting topics that are notable.
  • response to comment #12: Again, I was saying that this is topic is notable and countering what some said about vegetarians in this discussion.
  • response to comment #13: Once again, if there should be changes to the list, they should be proposed on the talk page, not in this AFD.
  • response to comment #14: In any case, AFDs for all those pages are unnecessary.
  • response to comment #15: If that is all true, then issuses should be discussed on the talk page.
  • response to comment #16: That rule is not valid here because this fulfills none of the seven listed on that page.
  • response to comment #17: Once again, that fallacy is not a WP rule, and they are rightly pointing out the notable of this topic.
  • response to comment #18: I don't think Hitler should be included, but that is an issue that should be discussed on the talk page.
  • response to comment #19: Perhaps, but admitting this is an "assault" on those pages makes it clear is a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT clearly and a violation of WP:NPOV too.
  • response to comment #20: List improvements, again, should be disccused on the talk page. I stand by what I said, You can have consenus on a talk page. Who says you can't?
  • response to comment #21: Once again, those changes should be discussed on the talk page.
  • response to comment #22: Well, this deletion attempt is definitely worthless.
  • response to comment #23: It is about vegetarianism, veganism and animal rights because people are challenging the notability of the lists.
  • response to comment #24: I think its interesting you say that "being a vegetarians is something notable about them" but then you declare that the list is "indiscriminate" and imply they aren't notable? Those two statements don't even make sense together and, in fact, they contradict each other.
And finally, in response to Normal Op, as I've said before, if you wanted to make those changes to the list, why not have a discussion on the talk page about it? Why have a AFD? It makes no bloody sense. Also, in response to Rhododendrites: Yeah, it was a pretty bad argument by the person who supports this deletion attempt, all around. Then in response to Johnpacklambert, You are doing to have to provide some evidence of those claims, buddy. And as I've said before, this should be discussed on the talk page, not in an AFD. Historyday01 (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01: Because it isn't being discussed there; it's being discussed here. No AfD is going to stop mid-process just to a discuss the same thing somewhere else. If it were being discussed over there, I would go over there to discuss it. Logical common sense. Normal Op (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it should have been discussed there INSTEAD of having this AFD. That's my point. If the page doesn't end up being deleted, then I'd be glad to discuss the issues on that page. None of these list pages are perfect, but wanting to delete it is going to the extreme.Historyday01 (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These huge lists of replies are not helpful. They do not facilitate conversation, and lend themselves to confusion and upset -- this sort of thing. Yes, there are plenty of problems with what Mercy11 has written. But it's going to be extremely difficult to point them out and start meaningful conversations about them -- as, I suspect, Mercy11 knows. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_vegetarians_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1138027606"