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. --jonny-mt 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegetarians[edit]

List of vegetarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (second nomination). Dotsod1 (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Doesn't contain a secondary inclusion criteria; at this point, it's category material until it becomes List of vegetarians by foo; I'll happy change my !vote if someone were to change it to be so. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It already seems to be List of vegetarians by country of residence; keep and move there as such. I didn't know it had been improved since the last AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although this list does appear to be changing, it's redundant. See Category:Vegetarians by nationality and its many subcategories (including the Category:Vegans by nationality branch). Indeed, the categories appear to be far more comprehensive than this list. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an improvement argument, not a deletion argument. Regarding redundancy, please have a look at our guidelines on categories and lists (emphasis mine): These methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. (...) Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system. Also, lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list -- deleting link lists wastes these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right - I'm aware of CLN, but what functionality could a list of vegetarians provide which a category could not? All I can come up with, offhand, is references - and those should already exist at the articles being categorized. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short summaries of who the person is, for one. Improved organization and readability; personally, I hate reading categories because of the way that they're presented. Lots of things that you can do with something that isn't just a table of entries generated by something that's meant for machine-readability rather than human. Also, I can't view them all at once, I have to select which section I want. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per WP:CLN, the fact that there is a category of vegetarians is irrelavent to whether or not the list should be deleted. However, this list is currently entirely unreferenced, but that is not a reason to delete it; it is a reason to flag it as being unreferenced, find sources for the entries, and delete entries for which sources cannot be found. Q0 (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep its as notable a demographic as any religion and is taken much more seriously than most creeds, think of both as philosophies or lifestyles.NewAtThis (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck out invalid !vote by banned sock. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NewAtThis. DarkAudit (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have a single List of Catholics either, though - note that the title redirects to a list of more specific lists (List of Catholic authors, List of Roman Catholic Church musicians, etc). There is a List of Buddhists, but it only lists people who were Buddhists by profession (i.e, Buddhist teachers and scholars). Most of the people listed at the list of vegetarians are people who are something else first and vegetarians second - a lot of them are professional musicians, actors, and athletes, for instance. To put it more clearly, most of the people listed are known for something other than their vegetarianism. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really see what point you're trying to make. They're listed as vegetarians because they are; it's referenced on their page, and if not, it shouldn't be on the list. Obviously, only notable people would end up here, and as such, it's no different than List of Catholics; it just hasn't advanced to that degree yet, although it's certainly doable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do take a look at List of Catholics, if you haven't already. It's everything but a list of people who are "listed as Catholics because they are" - it's a collection of lists of people who are best known for being associated with the Catholic church. People who are notable for some other reason, but happen to be Catholic, aren't contained in those lists. (The two odd exceptions are Catholicism in Nordic countries and List of people who converted to Catholicism; I'm not quite sure what to make of these.) If we applied the same policy to this list, we'd just list people who are outspoken vegetarians, not just everyone who happens to be vegetarian. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It seems pointless, but on the other hand I can't come up with a reason to delete it. --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lack of context. Does not distinguish between vegetarian, fish eating vegetarian, vegan, etc., could be made into a list of lists though. MrPrada (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone who eats no meat except fish is not really a vegetarian and does not belong in the list. A List of pescetarians could perhaps work though. Q0 (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or subdivide this list provides information that is not otherwise readily available anywhere else in Wikipedia (with categories you have to keep browsing around and can't see the whole list at once). If the list gets too long it could be subdivided into "List of vegetarians in [country]". --Greenwoodtree 08:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A good example of a list like this is List of Baptists; no secondary inclusion criteria other than being a baptist, but it only contains notable baptists, and subdivides the list. Keep in mind that AfD is not forced cleanup. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely unmaintainable and open-ended. Choice of diet is often transitory and changes, a list based on such a criteria will never be complete nor currently accurate. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as discrminate and verifiable list. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see why a list of 'vegetarians by nationality' makes any more sense. This should be kept and improved as a list of notable or historically important vegetarians. Those who are vegan should be moved to a vegan list, pescatarian to a similar list, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.47.172 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2008 (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.