Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegetarian

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 redirect to Vegetarianism. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian

[edit]
Vegetarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is already an article on this, called Vegetarianism. We don't need two. — Dædαlus Contribs 03:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in the end the term vegetarian really can't lend itself to anything other then an extended dictionary definition. Most of the actual encyclopedic information would be better suited for the Vegetarianism article. Jamesofur (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually much more could be placed. Take a look at Christian, Hindu, Jew, Zoroastrian, Muslim. 4 out of those 5 articles have long pages that state much more than just the term. We just need someone with the time and will to expand it properly. Warrior4321 04:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but most of those articles actually end up just restating a lot of the same info, in many ways they have the same issue. Look at Hindu for example, most of the article talks about the beliefs of hinduism not something that is actually unique to "Hindu" specifically. Jamesofur (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Vegetarianism. There is no reason to try to split the concept of "vegetarian" from "vegetarianism". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vegetarianism. If sources appear later that suggest this could be a standalone article, it can be restarted, but right now this is little more than an unsourced dictionary definition with some text redundant to Vegetarianism. Mr.Z-man 04:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The subject 'Vegetarian' has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So does 'Vegetarianism'. I have not even looked at the articles, because current content is totally beside the point. GNG, thus, keep.  Chzz  ►  04:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to vegetarianism. There's nothing to merge. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change !vote to keep. More exists now, and I'm seeing the beginnings of a decent article at this point in time that's more that what boils down to a WP:DICDEF. It's granted that it still points out to it being more or less something that echoes what can be found in Vegetarianism, but I'm pretty much willing to give this one a chance. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to vegetarianism. It was even originally created as a redirect to there, seven and a half years ago, but every now and then someone comes along and thinks it'd be a good idea to start a duplicate article instead. Can the redirect be protected? JIP | Talk 08:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to vegetarianism. Any useful for information should be placed there. Wiki ian 10:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vegetarianism. No content that isn't already there, and I don't foresee any content that would justify having two separate articles.--Michig (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep An ideology and a diet are not the same thing. Vegetarian and vegetarianism are not interchangeable any more than christian and christianity are. The article is new and being expanded. It was also gutted by those trying to delete and redirect it. It's important to provide time for a subject to be developed adequately instead of rushing to delete things because they aren't complete. The vegetarian article should cover what it is to be a vegetarian, the diet, the prominent people who are vegetarian, and the history of the diet, as well as the broader issues of a diet that excludes meat and animal parts. The vegetarianism article should cover the ideology, why it's practiced and based on what principles and beliefs. Certainly there is overlap, but these are distinct subjects that should be treated appropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be very interested in an explanation on how animals that are vegetarian can be discussed in vegetarianism. Do they prescribe to this belief system? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is,Wikipedia users looking for information about vegetarians (vegetarian people) would not think to look under 'herbavores'...Personally I think the human versus nonhuman animal distinction is overdone in our culture but the reality of word usage is, it would be a bad choice since users wouldn't look there, and even if redirected to herbavores would be a usage contrary to standard for the latter term. (My concerns re the title of this entry are posted below) --Harel (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that there is a difference between a diet and a belief system. And given the extent of the sources and the content, trying to merge all of the content from an aritcle on the vegetarian diet, into an article on the ideologies underlying it is ridiculous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your general point is certainly correct; just because there are multiple reasons, does not automatically mean separate subjects. Sometimes such separate subject do exist (e.g. environmental vegeterianism exists) The issue at hand, which we're discussing (and about which I've asked for clarification below) is whether in this case there is (not an automatic, but specific) cause for separate subject--Harel (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any content that needs it and redirect I see no point in this division, even if they are different subjects(and I don't see how) they can still be covered in the same article. Chillum 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect There might possibly be reason to split the article , but not when there is no specific content to split. The distinction between the diet and the belief system is dealt with by the articles Vegetarian nutrition and Vegetarian cuisine on one hand, and Ethics of vegetarianism on the other, and there are quite a number of other articles in the group. "Christian" seems to be an exception, as there is good reason to discuss the term itself in an encyclopedic way. I see no article for Buddhist or Republican (as a member of the US party) , or many similar possibilities. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect why this was not put up for redirect instead of AFD, I don't understand. Ikip (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of the arguments here are in favour of reverting the article to a redirect to vegetarianism. Am I allowed to invoke WP:SNOW and close the AfD early? JIP | Talk 19:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe that one of the reasons for splitting this off is that the author believes that vegetarianism is intself an ideology or belief system (I'm judging this from what is currently in Vegetarian). It isn't - vegetarianism is simply the practice of following a vegetarian diet. There could be many different reasons for following such a diet as stated in the article, e.g. health. Portraying vegetarianism as a belief system per se is fundametally flawed. The religious reasons for following such a diet are already covered by vegetarianism and religion and the ethical considerations in Ethics of eating meat. A vegetarian is simply one who practices vegetarianism and vice versa. --Michig (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The title of this article obviously ought to lead somewhere as the term is highly notable. The relationship of this to other related articles such as Pythagorianism is a matter of content editing not deletion. Note that there are dozens of articles in this category - Category:Vegetarianism - and it's not clear why we should pick on this one to merge when its title seems to be the most common name per WP:COMMONNAME. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep..possibly under clearer name Several good points are made on several sides. (Disclaimers: I am a long time vegetarian but have been mostly on my own and thus not very well familiar with 'vegetarian lifestyle', a term I use,and ask for info about, below)
It's true there is a Christian entry as well as Christianity,and likewise for Jew, Muslim, etc, as Warrior4321 notes. On the other hand vegetarianism is not a religion. Above point about "not clear why we should pick on this one" is legitimate but also legitimate is the "request for clarity of its purpose" I hear above. I would personally appreciate some clarity regarding the nature of the Vegetarian entry given that it's not a religion.. .. I agree with Michig that vegetarianism is not (necessarily) a belief system, that is, for some individuals it might be ...It's not a movement either (Vegetarianism, among other things, is) ...it is a lifestyle for some..
I generally dislike the term "lifestyle" but bear with me, or maybe suggest an alternate second word..but maybe "Vegetarian lifestyle" is a better name for this? It could then have sub-sections (and links to fuller articles) on vegetarian cuisine,on ethics, etc. As I said I don't generally like the word lifestyle...maybe there's a better word...the thing is, for religions we have Jew and Muslim etc, we don't currently have but might have one for Buddhist, which would widen our range (since Buddhism is not a religion per se) but we have easy words for it for categories, be it 'spiritual path' or "a tradition" or "A belief system" (or maybe even the dreaded "lifestyle" if some had their way) but it's harder to put a category for "Vegetarian"?
Admittedly, we could argue all day back and forth about what category might or might not work, but my hope is that all sides can be open and agree one some category, that is, "vegetarian" is a type of _____? If lifestyle, then "vegetarian lifestyle" would make it clear what it's supposed to be, giving focus and purpose. If we don't like lifestyle, and see it as X, then renaming as "Vegetarian X" might work...
Or I could be all wrong and maybe it's worth keeping as just Vegetarian (I just found an entry on Pedestrian that is not at all short) but if I as a long-time vegetarian (and almost as long vegan) "even" I am a little bit puzzled by the title,others may have similar questions: "Vegetarian Cuisine" is clear and "Vegetarianism" is a clear 'ism" and ethics of vegetarian/vegan/meat-eating , is clear what those are about, but just "Vegetarian" leaves me wondering if it's philosophy, lifestyle (like "straight edge" lifestyle overlaps with in the vegan-straight-edge movement I know not much about but have heard about) or something else..and if so what is that something?...
Sorry about the length, I am sitting on the fence here..I hope some of the questions raised above can be used to bring people together (rather than apart) once tentative answers to them are agreed upon...(if veganism continues to expand and becomes more and more common in the next 10 years as some expect, maybe in 2019 we'll have a conversation about the analogous entry?) Let's try to settle this one amicably :-) --Harel (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect to Vegetarianism. We need to ensure that Wikipedia's readers are getting the best possible information possible, if one were to goto this article see such a major topic as being a stub, what would they think? Secondly, I'd like to refer you all too WP:DICT, that is my case. Thirdly, It had been a redirect for a very long time, I see no reason to change it.--Jamie Shaw (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a new article and I'm happy to work on improving and expanding it, but not if it's going to be imminently deleted or I have to do it all by myself. I think an article on the diet (as opposed to the ideologies involved which are themselves extensive and notable) is worth including. I think a discussion of sorting out and possibly merging content with the nutrition and cuisine articles is also worth considering, but a good treatment of the subject of the vegetarian diet as a historical, social, and cultural topic seems worthwhile. The ideology is also worth giving a full an dfair treatment and I think it will be more effective if it doesn't have to include these separate diet focused content issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2009 (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/Vegetarian&oldid=1140229034"