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. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 21:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply

List of fictional vegetarian characters

List of fictional vegetarian characters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (4th nomination) 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). The inclusion criteria are currently non-existent, Listed characters are either recurring characters, cameos, guest stars, or one-off characters. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 05:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep; if there can be a list of vegetarians, why not a list of fictional vegetarians? It's well-sourced, as well. I personally couldn't give less of a crap about this subject, but it's perfectly encyclopedic as far as I can tell. jp× g 05:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. It would be unfortunate if this list was deleted, serving as a detriment to Wikipedia itself. The information on the page is put "in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" as per WP:IINFO. In terms of WP:DEFINING, that rule mainly focuses on "biographical articles" and this is clearly not a biographical article. Additionally, there are "reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" something notable, and the defining characteristic is that the characters are vegetarian. I agree with @ jp completely. The rationale for deleting the page is ridiculous. It would be better to discuss limiting the page, if necessary, on the talk page rather than going through this deletion process. The only reason that all characters are included is that I believed that keeping it open to all characters would allow for the addition of secondary and one-off characters, but I am willing to revise that in a discussion on the article's talk page. A deletion discussion like this is not the proper way to make such changes to the page. While there is an ongoing discussion to delete the List of vegetarians page, it has been kept times in the past, specifically in 2005, 2008, and vocal opposition to the deletion in 2006. Similarly, in 2006 and in 2019, people voted to keep List of vegans. Additionally, WP:LISTN shows that the rationale of the OP is unfounded:

Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. 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, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.

As a further comment, I don't get why this is listed in the "list of People-related deletion discussions" because the page lists fictional characters, not people. Historyday01 ( talk) 05:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

This is a very informative comment. Thank you, Historyday01. Jmill1806 ( talk) 13:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Sure, its my pleasure. Historyday01 ( talk) 13:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep That other nomination is a trainwreck and this one is no better as WP:BEFORE has not been observed. The topic clearly passes WP:LISTN – see the Literary Hub, Guardian or American Taboo, for example. Applicable policies therefore include: WP:ATD; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; WP:SOFIXIT; &c. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Vegetarianism is a social movement and as such representative characters in fictional portrayals is relevant information and context for those interested in this social movement. This is yet once again appearing to be but another attack on this minority group to make vegetarianism seem like a diet and downgrade its social movement significance. There are these lists included in Wikipedia: List of fictional robots and androids, List of fictional swords, List of fictional scientists and engineers, List of fictional plants, and List of fictional pirates. Hence there is much basis and grounds for a comprehensive List of fictional vegetarians to be included. Being a vegetarian character in a fictional context or piece of fiction is a notable part of the social movement and the individual characters do not need to be notable just for their inclusion in the vegetarian social movement to be relevant for research and reference purposes and therefore to be included in such a list. I have seen universities do now offer courses in vegetarian and vegan studies, which they didn't in my day, and this list would have very much valuable resources to offer and be therefore a useful tool to such students enrolled in those courses. BrikDuk ( talk) 10:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above discussion. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep everything that could be said already has been, no sense repeating it. Dream Focus 16:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete or move to Vegetarianism in fiction. A list like this is even more worthless than a list of actual people who are vegetarians. ★Trekker ( talk) 13:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• But to many people its worth its weight in cyber-gold, and nicely augments the notable topic "vegetarianism". Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Other people liking something doesn't make it good for Wikipedia. In the end anyone could call themselves vegetarian/pescetarian/etc for a week if they wish, its not a good thing to list people based on their diet in my opinion. ★Trekker ( talk) 14:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Randy Kryn is right. Basically you are opposing it because you just don't like it? Yikes. This list has merit as the above arguments have stated. Whether the other pages the OP wants to delete get deleted ultimately is up to those making those discussions. I hope they don't, but even if they do, this page still should remain. So, @ ★Trekker, I would be willing to make an additional "Vegetarianism in fiction" page, perhaps like the Intersex characters in fiction, which would be titled something like Vegetarian characters in fiction. In the case of the Intersex characters in fiction page, the page originally had a list like this page, but then I split it off, so that one gave a general history, and another focused on intersex characters, leading to the creation of the List of fictional intersex characters. In closing, there are so, so many lists on this site, as you probably know, so why is one focused on vegetarians not acceptable? It makes no sense to me. Historyday01 ( talk) 15:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Historyday01: No I want it deleted because its ridiculus to list people after a diet. Should we also have List of people who don't eat gluten or List of fictional cannibals? Its not a defining feature of pretty much any actual person or character. Its ridiculous. ★Trekker ( talk) 15:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Again, as the arguments above have stated, the page has merit. And you are showing that you just don't like the page. Vegetarianism is more than just a diet, as a reading of the Vegetarianism page will show. The proposed pages you list would be undoubtedly indiscriminate collections of information if they were created, but this page is relatively small in terms of the entries and limited in scope. I count 52 entries in all. That's a lot less than the List of anarchist musicians, the List of American conservatives, or List of conservationists to name three lists. As I've said elsewhere in this discussion, I'd be willing to further limit the entries on the page, but that discussion should happen on the talk page, not in this AFD. Historyday01 ( talk) 15:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Seems obvious. I would emphasize that vegetarianism in fiction has been an important social trend. Lisa Simpson being vegetarian in 1995 was a huge event. Jmill1806 ( talk) 13:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Exactly. I mean, Lisa the Vegetarian episode was watched by over 14 million people and even received two awards. That sounds pretty prominent to me. Historyday01 ( talk) 17:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the discussion above. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Agreed. Per WP:LISTOUTCOMES, lists are likely to be "kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction." In this case, this list has concrete criteria (characters who are vegetarian), has verifiable content (58 references at the present time), and was created on September 7, 2020 in an effort to cover the topic in some depth, including vegetarian and vegan characters, although it not comprehensive. This page is not an ephemeral listing or violates any other rule that would support its deletion. Additionally, this article has valid sourced information, which can (and should) be assembled in this list, having a potential in the future, following what is laid out in WP:HASPOT. Historyday01 ( talk) 22:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep, reluctantly. No valid reason for deletion has been advanced. WP:DEFINING is irrelevant as this is not CfD and I have no trouble imagining that a reasonable inclusion criteria could be established. I have concerns about the notability of the subject as established by coverage as a group, but not quite concerned enough to start scrutinizing that at the end of a snowing AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply

While I disagree with your "concerns about the notability of the subject," as I've said before in this discussion, I'd be willing to limit the list as needed, in a discussion after this AFD has closed. The other entries can move to a page titled something like Vegetarian characters in fiction. Historyday01 ( talk) 21:35, 4 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.