Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 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. While the list is in better shape than its already deleted counterpart, the problem of source reliability has not been addressed. Moreover, the support for a cause is not considered a defining characteristic for a group or list of people, while vice versa there are doubts how such a list of supporters (especially taken by itself, but to some extent also in combination with one of opponents) assists us in covering a controversial topic without bias. While a deletion review might shed further light on this issue, it is not a default action unless there are actual concerns that separate lists are needed apart from the existing articles about PETA and the respective individuals --Tikiwont (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

List of supporters of PETA

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Re-nominating this for deletion per precedent of List of opponents of PETA, which was deleted 2 days ago. WP:NOT of loosely associated people, being an supporter of PETA isn't a defining characteristic so this is a loose association to group people by. Also, this list is almost exclusively referenced by one biased and unreliable source: PETA itself. Delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous AfD in August 2006, at Articles for deletion/List of notable supporters of PETA. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as creator of the article, as long as the info isn't merged back into the main article (from which it was extracted for NPOV and length concerns). If the info is to be reintegrated into the article, then keep instead.--Ramdrake 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Indiscriminate list; if someone's support for PETA is particularly notable, it's better discussed in that person's biography. szyslak  02:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment; Isn't this the list I said I'd nominate myself if List of opponents of PETA was deleted? I don't mind if someone else wants to go to the trouble of AFDing it, although it would be nice if I'd been asked first, I had my own nomination ready yesterday but I didn't get a chance to list it, not sure what the hurry was. I'm flattered though that the nominator thought my argument from the other AFD was worth copying and pasting here, but it's always best to re-write them in your own words. Delete the list, now it's here. Masaruemoto 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Szyslak. Handschuh-talk to me 02:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Extremely well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's mostly sourced to PETA itself. Other sources include the celebrities' personal websites and POV sites like NewsMax. szyslak  17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Definitely a notable issue. Would say merge into main article, but it is too long.  This list is very well sourced anyways. - Rjd0060 04:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Since Peta does support terrorist organizations and is considered by many to be a terrorist organization, in itself, the public should be aware of which notable figure support this organization- Vladlvr 05:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you trust the website of (say) Hezbollah to report unbiasedly on who supports them? This article is sources almost totally from PETA websites. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Article seems well sourced to me, and both PETA and the members listed seem notable enough. Rray 13:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So if a celebrity is notable, and an organization is notable, that automatically makes the celebrity's support for the organization notable? Sounds like an odd case of inherited notability. szyslak  17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note that, as mentioned earlier, most of the sources come from PETA itself, and besides, it is misleading to claim that these people support the entire organization (which has some questionable practices in my opinion) when they only support one or two of their causes. -kotra (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Well sourced and informative. Poeloq 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - article seems to have been created as a sub-article of the main PETA article due to length considerations, which strikes me as reasonable, and I can't see that the list is "indiscriminate", although I personally might prefer setting a threshold for inclusion in the list somewhere, so as to not include those with only minimal involvement. -- John Carter (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and then bring both this and the previous deletion for Opponents to DRV so they can be considered together.  There is a virtue in consistency, and perhaps its time WP admitted as much. The case for keeping this depends on someone showing why the other article should be deleted and not this one--I just don't see it.DGG (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and follow the procedure as outlined above by User:DGG - fchd (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, and as poorly sourced (and probably unsourceable) and biased. Without List of opponents of PETA, this list is no longer NPOV. Also, none (except maybe Steven Seagal's reference, but that's debatable) of these references actually claim that the person supports PETA. They only claim that they have helped PETA in one of their causes. By the logic in this article, I support Nazism because animal welfare was one of their tenets (I don't, of course). I see no references that state the person supports PETA, therefore it is NOT referenced. -kotra (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No longer NPOV without the opposite article. Viperix (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (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.