Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous opiate addicts


 * 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 KEEP, as this has been massively edited during this AfD. It would need a new debate to examine this version of the article. -Splash talk 00:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

List of famous opiate addicts
no sources, clearly defamatory in some cases, OR  ALKIVAR &trade; 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It needs to be greatly pared down and sourced. I'd prefer it be limited to dead people also, as much to be historic and avoid gossippiness as anything. That said I think you should've put a verify tag for a bit before going for this step.--T. Anthony 02:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense here... BUT... this article been around since December 2003 (I moved it to this title in December 04) and has NEVER had any citations or sources for verification. It's gotten to the point that the majority of contributions are anon users using it to smear people.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 13:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, verify, and maintain sourcing for new additions. Adrian Lamo ·  (talk)  · (mail) · 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems notable, verifiable, & encyclopedic.  I like T. Anthony's suggestion about sourcing it and avoiding simple gossip about Whoopi Goldberg, for instance, but I'm personally not sure where to draw the line.  --Lockley 02:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. List of people believed to have epilepsy is how this kind of thing ought to be done, if it has to be done at all.  No vote. Ikkyu2 03:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my comment wasn't a vote either. I'd lean toward keep as I think there is a greater historical importance to opium addiction than there is for some others. However I'm not certain this list is necessary or worth it.--T. Anthony 04:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep the article and Delete all people in the article that have no source or ref for inclusion 99% of the list. Done. Keep. amd move to NPOV and factually accurate title &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no need to make a spectacle of other peoples problems. Carl Johnson 05:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment newly created user with this vote as only edit. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - drugs are destroying the hood. SeanJohnson 05:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment newly created user with this vote as only edit. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep addicts makin me the fat cat. Big Smoke 05:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment newly created user with this vote as only edit. Weregerbil 07:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep gotta be slangin to my homeboys keepin my pockets lined all the time. Ryder Wilson 05:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment newly created user with this vote as only edit. Weregerbil 07:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And also a character from Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, like all the other redlinks here. I would say they were vote-cramming, but they're voting different ways... — sjorford (talk)  09:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My vote on this matter is on a need-to-know basis only. Mike Toreno 05:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment newly created user with this vote as only edit. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete thems aint no pimps. Jizzy B 06:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment newly created user with this vote as only edit. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete unless each accusation is independently verified. As it stands now it seems to be a revisionist attempt to make opiate use normative. Please Don&#39;t BlockPlease Don't Block
 * Keep per Lockley, or better yet, make this a category. Crypticfirefly 06:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete although the concept is not forever unincludable. However, the overwhelming magnitude of unsourced potential defamations warrants deletion. Could someone look into possible sockpuppets above? Savidan 07:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic and unverifiable. -- Kjkolb 09:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable, hearsay and slander -Doc ask?  10:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete dangerous and likely defamous. Xtra 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the verified entries and cut the rest. I don't see any reason to cut it entirely. - Mgm|(talk) 11:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless verified. If kept, should be pared down to the verified cases only. Zunaid 12:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not one source or explanation in the entire article, which would be needed for this sort of topic. (the imdb links are just links to the people's biographies) -- Astrokey44 |talk 12:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - looks like the verification has already started. Recommend renaming to List of opiate addicts per WP policy of not putting "famous" in the title of lists. Turnstep 14:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem then becomes User A decides ... well the guy from this tv show played a heroin addict in episode #33A4X of That Show and adds a fictional character to the list. The point is to make this 1) real people 2) people who are notable enough to have their own article on wiki 3) verifiable ... IF its to be kept at all.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 14:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - unverifiable, possible defamy involved. And, what's more, it's a list.  Starry Eyes  17:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per everyone Raggaga 17:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * delete as listcruft :Supergolden:: 17:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per StarryEyes. You don't want to get yourself into a legal situation here. -- † Ðy§ep§ion † 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. At least certain entries (Burroughs, Belushi, de Quincey) seem easily verified.  Move to list of opiate addicts; fame or notabililty should be understood in any list.  Smerdis of Tlön 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's much better sourced than the vast majority of Wikipedia articles.  Just because there's potential for vandalism is no reason to delete. NoIdeaNick 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * NOW it is when i afd'd this it was 600 odd entries with no sources.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - AFD nom issues largely resolved -- A l e x W C ov i n g t o n  (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Renameand Keep; aren't we deleting "famous" from article titles? If sourced, the defamation issue shouldn't censor anyone. If Encarta says someone was an addict and so do I, let me guess who has deeper pockets and who is going get sued.  Carlossuarez46 22:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep now that sources have been cited, and rename to List of opiate addicts. Hall Monitor 23:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Arbustoo 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Some peoples heros are on here and it's understanable to want to delete it. This artical none the less will pop right back up. so keep it, but maybe some tighter controls (such as deaths and arrests may be worth it for a control perimitar) Hagamaba
 * Comment if kept it should be List of famous opiate users, I know they're extremely addicitive drugs, but it hard enough to verify if somebody used it, let alone whether they were addicted. --BadSeed 17:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I can see this being useful material to someone working on a paper on the history of opiate use.  I second the rename suggestions (with correct spelling).  Newbie question: is there a wikipedia tag for "don't add anything here unless you provide a source it"? Csari 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fuzzy, potential place for conflicts and recentism and thus no encyclopedical value. Pavel Vozenilek 22:18, 4 February 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.