Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of teetotalers

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of teetotalers[edit]

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

Collection of indiscriminate information. Very many people, including many notable people, do not drink alcohol. Not doing something is not only a very common feature of somebody's personality, it is also almost never a defining feature. Similarly we don't have a list of nonsmokers, etc. Sandstein 10:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This one is reminiscent of the numerous attempts to get List of bow tie wearers deleted. That one has been kept, in part, because one can specify that it is a "notable characteristic" of the individuals listed. I would support keeping a list of teetotalers who were notably so characterised - for instance because they had campaigned on the subject, or were outspoken about it, or were frequently held up in RS as an example of that lifestyle. But I fear the nominator is right, a list of people who just happen to have the characteristic is about as random as a list of people with shoe size 6. SpinningSpark 11:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While this article is well sourced, the problem is the list inclusion, given a persons alcohol abstention is not exactly a notable characteristic (as mentioned above, no different than tobacco use or narcotics use per say). More specifically the problem is the way each entry is categorised. Here we have full time teetotallers (all their lives), part time (recently), dead ones, or replased ones all in the same article, this easily becomes indiscriminate. Ajf773 (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced and a reasonable topic for an almanac, even if it's not terribly encyclopedic. It is bordering on indiscriminate, but that can still be addressed through normal editing rather than blowing it up and starting over. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After my first comment I was hoping regular editors of the page would come forward arguing the case that this was indeed a notable characteristic of the individuals listed. Or at least, they recognised the page had some problems, but please point out any entries that are dubious. It is now clear that there is no one curating the page and it has become a coatrack for every passing mention of someone being teetotal. I sampled the references randomly myself to check this. The very first one I looked at was John Ashcroft. There is nothing in the source until a passing mention right at the end. Not only that, it is a passing mention in a quote from his wife which itself is a passing mention in the article. So a passing mention in a passing mention. Looking at a few more, many of them are much the same - passing mentions. Plus, a lot of the sources are dubious reliability to say the least - gossip mag articles and the like. Cleaning this up would be a huge undertaking. So contrary to Power~enwiki's comment above, I think that WP:TNT is the answer in this case. SpinningSpark 16:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete To pull from a topic I'm familiar with, a good example of a good inclusion on that list is CM Punk, who has been straight edge all his life and made that a significant part of his personal life and onscreen character. Unfortunately, most of the entries are just not that good, and their abstention from alcohol barely gets a sentence of mention on their articles, if that. If someone wants to clean it up, I invite them to try—but doing so would be an absolutely gargantuan effort, and IMO not worth the time. Pinguinn 🐧 17:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and please ping me: Should this be a list of Temperance activists, past and present? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks lots and lots of very notable people to include, such as Russell M. Nelson and Mia Love and I could go on and on and on and on. Then we also have all those Native Americans who lived in alcohol-free cultures (although not many are known enough to merit articles). How many Muslims need to be added to this list? My mind is boggled already.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2018 (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.