Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ScottW (talk | contribs) at 01:49, 10 June 2006 (→[[List of car-free people]]: Delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

List of car-free people

WP:NOT Listcruft John Nagle 05:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 anyone who opposes you. --Calton | Talk 22:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable. -AED 08:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic, listcruft. --Terence Ong 08:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete Belongs on a pressure group's site, not on Wikipedia. Chicheley 09:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, needless list, and I say this as a car-free person myself. JIP | Talk 10:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, silly.--Andeh 13:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Merge, per Espresso Addict. Kafziel 14:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. —Cuiviénen 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_car-free_people&oldid=57806349"