Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable supporters of PETA


 * 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 delete and merge the content back in to the main page. As far as the deletion independent of the PETA article itself: all of the people on the page are notable in and of themselves (by virtue of them being real,established articles). All of the entries have references, and the wording at the top gives a fairly clear criteria. So I'm not seeing any reason to delete this page without a merge.

The main arguments for not having the information on the parent page itself are "space" and "POV". The space reason is very weak, given the size of the parent article. The POV argument seems to have been mostly addressed in the talk page, and the criteria at the top of this page nullifies a good part of the arguments against the section's inclusion in the parent. I recommend merging the section back in, and taking further problems with it to the talk page or to one of our fine dispute resolution systems (this is really not an AFD issue anymore). Since this obviously draws out strong feelings, I'll refrain from deleting the article, pending the inevitable deletion review of this controversial page. Turnstep 07:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

List of notable supporters of PETA
It's a list of names and external links, usually to PETA websites. It's not an encyclopaedic article. The PETA article would be the place for this sort of information, not a whole new article Lurker talk 15:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep- Actually, this list was spun off because it took way too much space in the main article and imparted a POV spin on the article dedicated to the organisation (which is itself controversial). It was the opinion of several editors of the article that this list doesn't belong in the article per se. It was created as an alternative to simply removing the list from the article (which was in danger of causing an edit war). Spinning it off seemed like an acceptable compromise. --Ramdrake 15:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - The PETA controversy is certainly encylopedic (although allowing too much unbalance is not). Not sure there are existing criteria for this particular case, so I detect a new criterion emerging&mdash;articles which faciliate maintaining the NPOV designation of the main article are worthy of retention. If so, I struggle with the merit of that approach, but... Williamborg (Bill) 15:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Then just compare it on its merits like any other list on Wikipedia. PETA is notable, and so are those celebrities. The information is sourced and verifiable. I think everything is there. --Ramdrake 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. A category might be the next step here. SliceNYC 16:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep- Please don't put this back in the main article. Read the discussion page on the PETA article and comment there before nominating this for deletion.L0b0t 16:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No. If an article is judged by the AfD process to be unencyclopaedic, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Creating an unencyclopaedic article to deal with unencyclopaedic material in another article is passing the buck. This article should be judged on its own merits, not by the wishes of the contributors to another article Lurker talk 10:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Celebrities' affiliation with this controversial group is considered very notable by the media, so it's fair game for a list like this -- just so long as the names are cited and verifiable. Let's not label someone as being PETA if they aren't. But this list does indeed cite sources. 23skidoo 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Question: Could the list be converted into a collapsable template within the main PETA article? Punkmorten 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think this would fully address the issue. Please read the talk page.--Ramdrake 18:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Ramdrake. xompanthy 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd call those external links "references". Also reccomend a speedy keep, since the nominator seems to be asking for a merge, and no one has voted delete. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge back into the main article; that's where it belongs. Moving the content to a new article because it was controversial in the main article is not a good means of solving a content dispute. It's short, it's self-contained, and it should be a section in PETA. None of the arguments on the talk page there are convincing as to it being a separate article. --MCB 21:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Unencyclopedic list with little objective criteria. What makes each supporter "notable" enough to be on the list? "Supporter" is also not defined. This gives rise to serious POV issues and may constitute original research in some respects. Most importantly, I fail to see how this list is any more encyclopedic than List of celebrities with links to the Conservative Party of Canada (and three other Canadian political parties) (see the AfD Discussion here), or the equivalant American lists, List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party and List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party (see the AfD for those here). Agent 86 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read the discussion on the PETA page to see why we CAN NOT merge this back with the article.L0b0t 22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Having an article in Wikipedia is in itself "proof" of notability. The list does not contain anyone without an article. -- Petri Krohn 23:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The prior comment is incorrect. When discussed, we keep articles on notable topics that also meet all of our other policies.  AFD is a process in which we decide about what is notable, and we only hold AFDs for articles, so the fact that there is an article is not a proof of notability.  At the most, the existence of an article proves only that at least one person in the world thinks the topic is worthy of an article.  GRBerry 15:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If you mean to say that some or all of the names on the list are non-notable, then one should logically also name the articles pertaining to those persons deemed non-notable for the AfD process. Disputing the notability of the people on the list without first disputing their Wikipedia articles is logically akin to putting the cart in front of the horses (or oxen, depending on your ethnic background).--Ramdrake 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. As per Agent 86's comments. Articles on Wikipedia get contested for notability everyday. Having an article in Wikipedia is not "proof" of notability. If it were, contesting notability in WP:AfD wouldn't be possible and every vanity page out there would be validly notable, just because it's here. Allisonmontgomery69 23:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Vanity pages are written everyday on Wikipedia, and AfDs to get rid of them are also written up. However, most of the names in that list are well-known and notable. PETA is itself notable, and all names listed have references as to what exactly they did for PETA. Are you contesting the notability of 1)all names on the list as non-notable 2)some names on the list as non-notable or 3)PETA itself as non-notable? --Ramdrake 23:54, 30 July 2006
 * Comment even if you assume that everyone on the list is "notable" (which is always open to review and is subjective) and PETA is "notable" (the latter of which isn't under dispute), how do you quantify "supporter"? How notable do you have to be to be on this list? Does the person have to have a membership? Have tossed some money into the coffers? Said nice things in the news? It's too subjective as it requires one to make an assumption about a person's state of mind. Agent 86 01:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "Supporter" is defined by the fact that they agreed to be part of one of PETA's campaigns, with a link to a proper cited source for each notable person listed. --Ramdrake 01:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, let me take that back. I defined in the introduction the meaning of "supporter" in the article and made clear how to look up what each personality specifically did for PETA. Hope it helps.--Ramdrake 02:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't a useful encyclopedia article, it's a celebrity endorsement list. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-encyclopedic content. Should not be merged back to original article.  Lists of celebrity endorsers are non-encyclopedic no matter what they are endorsing nor whether it is done for pay or for free.  GRBerry 15:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. And don't put in the PETA article, it doesn't belong there either. Skinmeister 21:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I've found this article useful, and I don't see how POV is an issue in this case. All the celebrities mentioned in the list have been vocal about their support for PETA.  Also, PETA and its celebrity supporters are often in the news, so this is also notable. --musicpvm 03:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- The info is factual and verifiable. It's not up to some users to decide what is useful for everyone. Several writers say they have found the list useful. Those who advocate deleting the list can only be acting out of an anti-PETA POV. kibi 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest the prior commentator read the official policy on assuming good faith. GRBerry 19:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. This list was moved from the main article as a way to settle a contensious npov issue. As such it probably break with pov forking guidelines. But no objections was raised to the move on the talk page, and this was a hot issue, so it's safe to assume it's a fair compromise between notability (the article has a small section concerning celebrities support pointing to the list) and npov. Jean-Philippe 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but it needs a bit of work to change it from just a list into something useful. It should not be merged back into the main article due to the articles size, however it could provide a useful set of information if done right Localzuk (talk) 06:38, 4 August 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.