Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegans (3rd nomination)

List of vegans

List of vegans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This list fails WP:DATED, which advises, for text that is likely to go out of date to be verifiable, statements should be dated. As evidenced by the talk page's list of former vegans, and some research, following a vegan diet is not an immutable characteristic (such as Latino or profession, which Wikipedia treats as immutable). I don't doubt many BLPs listed are no longer vegan, even as we claim they are.

For the list to be verifiable, an extra column would have to be added, "as of". This would contradict the strong claim made in the title, which implies "currently a vegan" rather than "was ever a vegan", as seen by the removal of entries when people are no longer identified as vegan. This point was only cursorily addressed in the last deletion discussion, which came to no-consensus. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator per reply to Betty Logan. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep The article is well sourced. It is true that in the past there were celebrities on the list who were not vegan. Myself and another user have fixed this problem by removing them from the article list. On the talk-page there is a long list of former vegans and mistaken vegans . I am not convinced we need to start adding dates when people became vegan on the list. Adding WP:RS is good enough. If users want to know more about their veganism they can click on the biographies of the person and read their article. Veg Historian (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'm thankful for your comment. I'll just note once on "the article is well sourced" that, as an example, the source listed is an RS for the claim that Mark Browning was a vegan as of 2010, but it is not a RS for the claim that he is a vegan now, per the reasoning in the nom. Sources are considered reliable/not reliable for a given statement. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 11:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  I believe the criteria you are setting for this list is too high. This is a simple list of vegans. If a person is not vegan anymore and we have an WP:RS for that we just remove their name from the list. If a reliable source says someone is vegan and we have no further updates on that then we leave them on the list. I am not sure why you are trying to over complicate this list. It is true that many vegan celebrities seeking fame and fortune give up their veganism but they are mostly doing it as a fad and not for ethical reasons. Once we have newspaper material or interviews about this documenting when they gave up veganism; we just remove them from the list. We do not add dates. Myself and another user have removed many of these from the list in the past.

  Adding specific dates is just overcomplicating things. I have not seen this criteria suggested for other lists. Are you also going to be suggesting next that we add specific dates to List of animal rights advocates saying when they became activists? I believe this is unnecessary. As stated if someone is not vegan anymore and we have a source on that; we just remove them from the list. Veg Historian (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  To use your example, List of animal rights advocates does not require dating the attribute (e.g. as of 2024 they were an animal rights advocate) because it is not "likely to go out of date" as WP:DATED states. The reason I say this is likely to go out of date is because a) the long list on the talk page shows a lot of people come in and out of veganism (and sources probably won't exist for a lot of them doing that: for BLP articles to avoid error and for verifiability we date these statements) and b) the research I mention in the nom. I'll leave this as my last comment. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 11:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep but preserve only verifiable entries. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: This list provides a valuable resource, showcasing notable individuals who have followed a vegan diet, supported by reliable sources. It's an informative tool, promoting transparency and accuracy. As long as we maintain verifiability and remove individuals who are no longer vegan based on reliable sources, there's no need for added complexity like specific dates. The list serves its purpose of highlighting veganism without overcomplicating the matter, and it remains a useful reference for those interested in the subject. However, I would not be opposed to an extra column for dates, which could be a useful addition to acknowledge those who were vegan for part of their lives or careers, without complicating the core purpose of the list. Either way! MaynardClark (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep They do get coverage in reliable sources for being vegan. Dream Focus 18:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I am perplexed as to the rationale. The very nature of Wikipedia is that many claims are only factually verifiable within the time-frame of the source. You can literally pull out the date the claim is made (or at least published) by hovering over the reference at the end of the row. This is actually a strength the list has over a category, because the context, the time-frame and the sourcing for the claim can be immediately accessed. At best, the proposer is making a case for making information already in the article a little bit more obvious and accessible, but that is not a deletion rationale. The article is well sourced and satisfies WP:LISTN. Betty Logan (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Betty Logan: I did consider this idea before nominating, that you can simply hover over the source date to get an "as of." I persisted in nominating, however, as I agree with the logic presented in WP:DATED, that this is an issue of verifiability. If a source says Hershey's was the biggest chocolate company as of 2010, and I present such information as "Hershey's is the biggest chocolate company", the claim would fail verification. Omitting "as of 2010" implies a contemporary nature that the source cannot verify. It is not sufficient to simply include the date in the reference. Besides, readers only very rarely look at the sources.

  I considered if a column dating the identifications would resolve this, and decided against it. This is because the list is of people who are currently vegans, seen in the lack of qualification in the title or lede, and in the way people are removed as they cease following the diet/lifestyle. This may be nitpicky, and I wouldn't begrudge the community deeming it so, but if I read a list of people who are currently vegans and a name was included, even dated, I would read this as claiming they are currently vegan, last confirmed on this date. Perhaps this could be worked around with lede text, although structurally I am doubtful.

  Regardless, there's a consensus here to keep. Either my thinking was understood and disagreed with, or I didn't communicate coherently enough to generate understanding. I'll withdraw the AfD when I am back at a computer. If you care to respond to my thinking I'd love to hear on my TP, but I understand if not. Best, Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 20:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

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.