Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of car-free people


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Metamagician3000 14:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

List of car-free people
WP:NOT Listcruft John Nagle 05:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The article creator's position statement can be found at Talk:List of car-free people.


 * Delete as listcruft/trivia, per WP:NOT. --John Nagle 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep by looking at Google, carfree seems to be a legitimate movement. Other lists exist of notable people that fit into similar categories (vegetarians and vegans for example). Ckessler 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Could be useful, as it is a relatively rare thing based on the criterion it seems - the title probably needs work though. RN 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not that rare; a significant fraction of the population of New York City does not drive. --John Nagle 05:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment That may be true, but how many of those people are choosing not to drive, and how many don't drive for economic or practical reasons? Ckessler 05:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the title, I looked to the existing articles Car-free movement and List of car-free places as a guideline for my choice of wording. thoreaubred 05:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: People on the list would be making the same choice as New Yorkers, they just have different motivations. It's also easier for famous people, as they are often wealthy enough to fly, be driven around or rent cars for short-term use, so they are not giving up much. Both groups have circumstances that allow them to not own a car, which is impossible or at least an enormous burden in many areas. Also, while most New Yorkers, and other people without cars, probably don't have a car for practical or economic reasons, it is likely that a significant percentage do not own a car for ethical reasons. It's also strange to pick a single issue like this. I don't see how it is much different from a list of people who recycle or compost, except that they are more widespread. -- Kjkolb 07:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not at all analagous to people who recycle, as recycling is not a deliberate departure from an ingrained social norm, whereas veganism is much more analagous (which is why I keep citing it) because, like choosing to live car-free, it is a lifestyle change that departs from a very dominant, entrenched culture and is arguably difficult (and therefore notable when accomplished) for that very reason. I believe List of vegans is a directly analagous precedent and if it is allowed to stay then List of car-free people should also be allowed.  thoreaubred 07:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep it's a lifestyle choice movement relevant to major current issues such as climate change, and lists of other lifestyle choices such as vegans have not been deleted. thoreaubred 05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge While the Car-free movement article is notable enough for a keep, this list is too small to justify its existence. Perhaps merge it with the aforementioned article.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I could live with that. There were only three people in the list, and I didn't see how it was going to grow much, given the need for verifiability.  --John Nagle 06:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The list is small because it was just added today. I started with the two very notable figures I knew for sure and had time to find sources for, and hoped that other people would expand the list in the future, as I would as well.  I'm adding people as we speak.  The List of vegans requires verifiability yet has steadily grown over time.  It's not unusual for such a list to start small, and its current size after only a few hours should not be a factor in its deletion.  thoreaubred 06:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as cruft and original research. It is unlikely that a reliable source has compiled a substantial list of this type, so editors will try to interpret who is car-free by statements that the people make or other clues. -- Kjkolb 06:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Since when are articles deleted based on empty speculation about whether they will be verifiable? Leave verification to the editors of the article.  So far I've added five names to this list and used a solid source for each one, and held off adding any I'm pretty sure of but haven't yet found a source for.  There are many articles about which one could make the speculation you're making, but that bridge should be crossed when it is come to, it should not be the basis for deleting an article.  thoreaubred 06:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Since when are articles deleted based on empty speculation about whether they will be verifiable? No, it's more like articles are deleted because verification will be based on empty speculation. --Calton | Talk 07:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment And that is bad-faith rhetoric. How can you proclaim that an article's verifications will be based on empty speculation when every name added to the list so far has cited a reputable source, and when so many other lists of this kind exist and also contain verification by reputable sources?  What is the point of making such slanderous declarations, such as that an article's verification "will be based on empty speculation", an empty statement that could be said about any and every article?  Come on, stop being disingenuous and insulting anyone reading this discussion with such hollow rhetoric.  thoreaubred 08:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You first: stop insulting my (and everyone's) intelligence with the tendentious browbeating and content-free use of "bad faith", "slandering", and "disingenuous". --Calton | Talk 22:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete potentially large and seemingly indiscriminate. Jammo (SM247) 06:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article/chart, it's a political movement's celebrity endorsement list. --Calton | Talk 07:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Though the list in question is a list of people making a lifestyle choice, not a political one, there are lists on Wikipedia of notable people in countless political parties, philosophies, or movements, from Democrats to Fascists to Pacifists. See List of people by belief and the category Lists of People By Ideology which includes lists ranging from Neo-Nazis to Transhumanists to Ethcisits to Conscienscious Objectors.  If these arguments being made against List of car-free people are in good faith, are those making them also going to propose deletion of every list of people by ideology, belief, political philosophy, lifestyle, and so on?  thoreaubred 08:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, "bad faith" would be misusing terms like "bad faith", divorcing it from its real meaning in an attempt to use it as a content-free insult. Bad faith would be the annoyingly common logical fallacy of taking legitimate but vaguely related articles -- lists regarding deep personal beliefs, philosophical underpinnings, and reasons for historical importance important to understanding the life stories of individuals -- and attempting to compare and align one's personal pet cause with them, a form of intellectual-burnishment-by-association (or perhaps cargo-cultism). Bad faith would be asking ludicrously broad and essentially unanswerable rhetorical questions to avoid confronting the obvious flaws raised by debate. Bad faith would be the general trend of trying to justify what amounts to propaganda with endless browbeating of anyone who opposes you. --Calton | Talk 22:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Your dishonest, hypocritical rhetoric is exasperating. People like you are the reason that serious people are abandoning Wikipedia every day, because they're tired of having to defend every new article against an onslaught of overzealous rule-fetishists wielding empty, shamelessly dishonest rhetoric and talking points like that which you have displayed.  I give up, because trying to maintain a debate in the face of such dishonesty is too exhausting.  I was wondering at what point I would finally give up on Wikipedia (like so many others) and I think this is it.  (Not that your comments make up the bulk of those on this page, but they sum up the worst it, and the worst of the level of debate on Wikipedia in general.)  thoreaubred 07:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, and the bad-faith hits just keep on coming! Bad faith would be the use of empty and hyperbolic adjectives to add meaning where there is none ("dishonest"? What have I lied about? "hypocritical"? Which of my principles -- stated or otherwise -- have I violated?). Bad faith would be making apocalyptic and unprovable statements about the consequences of, well, telling you that you're wrong. Bad faith would be ham-handed attempts at guilt-tripping. Bad faith would be the temper-tantruming of "do what I say or I'll take my ball and go home!" If the list in question demonstrates the level of contribution you'd bring to Wikipedia and if this AfD demonstrates the level of discourse you'd bring to discussions of edits -- well, Sunny Jim, I'd say, "Sorry, and don't let the doorknob bang you on the ass on the way out." --Calton | Talk 01:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unmaintainable. -AED 08:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic, listcruft. --Ter e nce Ong 08:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yawn. I think this about sums up this "discussion" so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_wikipedia#Level_of_Debate "The standard of debate has also been called into question by persons who have noted that contributors can make a long list of salient points and pull in a wide range of empirical observations to back up their arguments, only to have them ignored completely by the community."  No kidding.  This once-interesting site is becoming more and more over-moderated and ruled by mobs of groupthinkers who can't be bothered to actually listen to a logical argument if it conflicts with their preconceived fetish for misguided, bad-faith deletions and edits and any other applicable acts of belligerence based on misinterpretations of already inconsistent and contradictory policies and guidelines and other such rule-porn for failed librarians.  It's gonna come to point where everyone who once took a serious interest in Wikipedia regards it as a joke and the only people left participating in it are the same gangs of heavy-handed overmoderators who dominate "discussions" like this one with blind regurgitations of weak, rhetorical wikilogisms like "listcruft" and "unmaintainable" and all the other fun little phrases with which you decorate this formidable e-fortress, all the while warning, in one of your many guidelines and policies, against neologisms.  thoreaubred 08:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because I'm a groupthinking overmoderator. ~ trialsanderrors 06:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge with car-free movement. Just a little note...as someone who is carfree (though currently reconsidering it), I have no anti-carfree biases that would influence my decision to vote delete. jgp 09:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Belongs on a pressure group's site, not on Wikipedia. Chicheley 09:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, needless list, and I say this as a car-free person myself. J I P  | Talk 10:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I didn't even learn to drive till I was 30, and this page is still a pointless waste of everyone's time. Two members of an obscure folk band, Ralph Nader and Nabokov?  That's the best you can do?  Incredible.  Maybe we should add Jesus, who prefered motorcycles. -- GWO
 * Delete. There are over 6 billion people in the world, most of whom do not own a car. By definition, therefore, this list will always be incomplete (as people die, are born or even acquire a car) and therefore a useless article. Markb 12:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Car-free movement, until the verified list becomes long enough to merit hiving off. The car-free movement is well known, at least in the UK. The list inclusion criteria, referencing notable people who elect for ethical reasons to avoid car ownership, seem reasonable and comparable, as the creator points out, to vegans or pacifists. Espresso Addict 13:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, silly.-- Andeh 13:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Car-free movement, which is a fairly sparse article at the moment. I'm agreeing with Espresso Addict's reasoning. The list of carfree individuals should probably stress that they are car-free as an active ethical choice, rather than by random circumstance. This would take care of the argument that most of the world's population should be included on the list. Joyous! | Talk 14:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, per Espresso Addict. Kafziel 14:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia should not contain things you thought up one day at school.  I agree with the argument that most (all) lists should go.  We'll do it one at a time. Consider categories.  Ted 18:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A short list of prominent "car-freers" might be worthwhile at Car-free movement, but a list such as this one serves no encyclopedic purpose. — C uivi é nen on Friday, 9 June 2006 at 21:28 UTC '''
 * Keep. Fascinating and important information in our car-dominated society. Also, no valid reason given for deletion. --JJay 23:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which car-dominated society would that be? --Calton | Talk 01:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Most places in the world where people have access to this reference work, but perhaps not the bucolic backwater where you live. For more information see google . --JJay 21:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I live in the bucolic backwater of Tokyo, Japan: is that a "car-dominated society"? More to the point, however, is your telling use of the adjective "our": so which car-dominated society would that be, and why does your particular brand of provincialism trump the international focus of this encyclopedia? And where is the rationale for Wikipedia being some sort of engine of social change for "our" "car-dominated" society (however you're defining those two terms)? --Calton | Talk 02:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's far too many philosophical questions beyond the scope of this debate and my obviously limited intelligence (although the layers of meaning interwoven with your always delightful dissection of most of the comments on this page will, I'm sure, continue to amuse your fans). However, now that you've shared with us your home base, you might perhaps want to use Toyota, Nissan or Mitsubishi as the starting point for an examination of Japan's role in the global auto industry. --JJay 02:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; funny, I thought I saw WP:NOT at the top of the page. For my part, I am desperately unimpressed with the impassioned speeches about how we're a bunch of deletionist fascists for failing to see encyclopedic merit in a list that, as has accurately been pointed out, includes most of the people in the world, for reasons as disparate as economic, lifestyle choice, moral or simply that they're underage - Dakota Fanning must be car-free, if you think about it.  RGTraynor 23:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's an enormous amount of bla bla at WP:Not. Strangely enough, though, "listcruft" and "trivia" are not present in the policy. The least the nom could do is devote a few more seconds of his time to explain the reasoning behind the nom. Perhaps even write a whole sentence. I'm sure even "deletionist fascists" can do that. --JJay 02:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, WP:NOT doesn't mention my mobile phone, my desk calendar, or the can of Café Du Monde Original French Market Coffee Stand Coffee and Chicory in front of me, and yet somehow they're not getting articles, either. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, you might want to add the items to WP:Not. While you're at it, please add listcruft and trivia as well. At that point, I will most happily rescind my comment above. --JJay 02:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment And I'm unimpressed (though perhaps not desperately) by people who put words in others' mouths, as you are the first person to mention "fascists". Perhaps you should look that word up.  What I called people was heavy-handed overmoderators, mobs, gangs, groupthinkers, belligerent, misguided, failed librarians, rule-fetishists, and so on, as well as implying either illiteracy or simply a conscious choice not to bother reading the logical arguments that have already precluded many of their fallacious, disingenuous points.  I never called anyone a fascist. thoreaubred 07:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - and are you seeking praise for not using the term "fascist" among your many other insults against those who disagree with you? Possibly a spoonful of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA would go down a bit tastier while you wait.  That being said, you make a common error in presuming that those who disagree with you do so only because they do not understand your position or aren't bothering to address it.  RGTraynor 08:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and in fact, they are among the very few policies on Wikipedia that actually make sense. Therefore, being fed up and just about done with Wikipedia, I would rather have the satisfaction of violating its two reasonable policies than its 50 ridiculous ones (the latter is done effortlessly be being a serious, sincere user of the site; only the former can be done deliberately).  As for your second comment, I don't make any "common error" (I'm so impressed with all the wikimavens around here talking about the "common errors" and "common fallacies" that must plague anyone who dares to disagree with them.)  Actually, I base the observation (not presumption) that people aren't listening to my arguments on the fact that every so-called argument they offer up has already been precluded by mine.  It's not that they're disagreeing with me--actually it's exactly that they're not disagreeing with me, as they are mindlessly repeating reasons that I have already demonstrated to be invalid.  Disagreeing with me would require rebutting even one of the several strong arguments I've made for my case, and no one here has done that.  Oh wait, why did I type all that, it's not like you're gonna bother reading it or giving it the slightest bit of thought, as I'm just making the common error of disagreeing with you.  thoreaubred 10:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So calling people mobs and gangs is civil? I guess WP:CIVIL only makes sense to you when it's someone else who is being incivil (uncivil?). Since you are the creator of the article being discussed, I highly doubt your objectivity. You are simply doing whatever you can to save your "baby", including smearing other editors to do so. There's nothing wrong with defending your creation, but you've gone way too far. jgp 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as an indesciminate collection of information. Hmmmm. Here's a large set of things. Here's a trivial and unrelated criterion. Put them together and... hey presto! LISTCRUFT!!!! Reyk  YO!  01:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, though I recommend bike-riding to everyone. Seriously, your life will be so much better. However, this article is vague and unencyclopedic. ScottW 01:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, impossible list. I think just about everybody born before 1850 probably qualifies.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you missed the first line in the article where it said the list was only open to people who lived "much or all of their lives after the invention of cars". --JJay 02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which still means the vast majority of the current 6.5 billion people should be on this list. Markb 15:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you find the time, please see the first line in the article where it is made clear that: "this is a list of noteworthy people". To my knowledge, we do not yet have articles on the "vast majority of the current 6.5 billion people". Hence, your statement is erroneous. --JJay 18:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So there are 6 'noteworthy people', out of the 6.5 billion in the world, who don't drive cars? Utter tosh! Even more laughable, out of this 6, 17% don't have an entry in Wikipedia, so are hardly 'noteworthy'. I rather suspect this article is trying to make a political point (& a very parochial one at that, I note the 5 people with their own entries are all assocaited with the USA). Markb 07:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You should realize that anyone can edit articles at wikipedia. Therefore, in answer to your questions: (i) add more people to the list if you feel that six is not enough; (ii) remove entries for people you do not consider "noteworthy"; (iii) add non-American names in order to fight the cultural bias that you seem to sense in this list. I hope this helps. --JJay 21:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure anyone can edit the thing or add more names. Screenwriter William Goldman, however, had an term for the constant rewriting and polishing of bad and essentially unsalvageble screenplays, a term that seems apt here: "washing garbage." --Calton | Talk 02:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's really fascinating, and would even be meaningful, except this list, at present, has little relationship to screenwriting. As always, though, thanks for the comment. --JJay 02:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's one of those quirky little Wikipedia things, but as long as they're all verified then I don't see any problem with it. And it was notable enough for all those media organizations to discuss it. ENpeeOHvee 05:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Car-free movement --Gherald 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, pointless obscure listcuft. - Motor (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. There are lists of notable people belonging to various movementgs, why not this one? And to echo another user...Yes, people ARE leaving Wiki every day due to the 'delete everything' fanaticism that has unfortunately seeped into the site. TruthCrusader 19:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 'delete everything' fanaticism That's right! Those people who want to delete everything, leaving behind nothing but a blank website! They must be stopped.  Psst, can you tell me where these crazy people are? Are they hiding under the bed somewhere? --Calton | Talk 01:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not to belabor the point but this should've started out as a section under the Car-free movement entry in the first place and then maybe graduate into a full-blown list after gathering enough credible entries, and if Tbred wasn't so enarmored with putting the hate on other people this could've been resolved a long time ago. ~ trialsanderrors 21:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as, well, listcruft. Sandstein 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated note, I wish right now I could add all Italian inhabitants of Berne to that list, as they've all been driving around my house, honking and yelling, for one hour now. I understand Italy won their first World cup game against some push-over team. Porca miseria. Sandstein 22:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't insult the great nation of Ghana. --JJay 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not insulting the the great nation of Ghana. I'm insulting their football team, and also the the great but loud nation of Italy. I understand this is acceptable in a sporting context. And yes, the above comment was not intended to be taken completely seriously, and neither is this one. Sandstein 15:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - this topic is not noteworthy.JB196 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would put this under the category of 'indiscriminate collection of information' in WP:NOT. David | Talk 15:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Non-notable listcruft. --Musicpvm 17:06, 17 June 2006 (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.