Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of iconic drinkers


 * 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

List of iconic drinkers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

List with extremely fuzzy definition and an inherent tendency towards original research. What makes someone an "iconic" drinker? The list says it's for those for whom "drinking is clearly a recognised part of their public or private image," but there remains no clear way to define this, other than editors agreeing amongst themselves (WP:OR) who is "recognized" as a drinker. Delete as unverifiable, original research, and poorly defined. Dylan (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Original research. Mr.  Z- man  00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't need these people to be lumped together. If they drank a lot, mention it in their page. The title is a bit misleading, as well. "Iconic" isn't the right word, maybe "List of people famous for drinking", but even then, it probably wouldn't be suitable. J- ſtan TalkContribs 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - "Iconic" is subjective. Certainly poorly defined and unverifiable, but I don't know about the original research. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * *hiccup* Delete as poorly defined, unverifiable, original research, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome that this exists. Delete because its all wrong.--CastAStone|(talk) 01:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-defined, easy to verify and quite notable. There's no original research in this list - most of the examples were already familiar to me.  Colonel Warden (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless there's a name change. I have a problem with the "List" and "Iconic" part. Would be a pity if this was deleted though, it's such a nice article, clearly sourced and everything. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a WP:BLP nightmare - some of these subjects are still alive, and we're calling them drunks, and in some cases womanizers/pill poppers, and so forth. OK, if its true no harm no foul, but many of these sources are drinking enthusiast websites, not reliable sources. This is exactly the kind of article that could get WP in trouble, entertaining though it may be. Xymmax (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Darn it I meant to say that n all, I just forgot. Everyone listen to the guy above ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Weak Delete The clarification of "iconic" is potentially vague, but in a similar way as WP:N. It is verified via the existence of secondary sources, which the article makes a positive effort to supply.  I agree, a source extolling drinking stories does not properly support that "drinking is clearly a recognised part of their public or private image", only that drinking is part of their history......You know what, it writing my explaination, I've changed my mind.  I also am swayed by the arguments made by Xymmax. -Verdatum (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As Xymmax said, this is a WP:BLP nightmare. Garion96 (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per User:TenPoundHammer and definitely Xymmax. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 08:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll have a gin and iconic please. I encourage the author to userfy this and reconsider where it belongs.  The problem with this one isn't the topics, but that the list combines, for lack of a better description, on-screen and off-screen drinking.  "On-screen" would be folks like Foster Brooks or Hal Smith (Otis on Andy Griffith), character actor drunks in an era where drinking problems were considered funny.  Off screen would be the many actors and actresses with well-known alcohol abuse problems.  Though I can't say keep, delete isn't my choice either.  Take it down and retool it.  The potrayal of drinking, drug use, smoking, etc, has changed changed as attitudes have changed. Mandsford (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I find this article leads me to interesting biographies of people I would not have heard of. If you are worried about libel, make the list only open to the deceased. If you read the Discussion page, it has a lively group of editors. -- K72ndst (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You may want to look at WP:INTERESTING. Also if we restrict it to the deceased, should we move it to List of dead iconic dirinkers?  Sounds odd. -Verdatum (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you been dirinking again? Just kidding. Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Originally modelled after the List of iconic smokers, I find the page celebrates the curious inhibition of the grape and grain. Should all drug related practices be reduced to historical subsets of their scientific pages? The pages shows the effects of alcohol, both good and ill, and makes me smile. I'm off to one of London's nefarious Soho dens. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That article of course was deleted per Articles for deletion/List of famous smokers (2nd nomination). Garion96 (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is being targeted because it is about drinking. Each person in the article has a reference cited, so there is no original research here that is not in the other biographies. And if you go after this list, what makes it any different from others like it of less-than-noble aims? Such lists as Adultery in literature, List of Latter Day Saints, and the popular (and very interesting!) Closed London Underground stations. -- K72ndst (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As the nominator, I can assure you that I have no hangups about drinking and that the subject matter of this article is not the issue. The issue is the fact that membership in this list is not clearly defined. Who's to say what a recognised part of their public or private image is? Recognized by whom? People are listed variously for their enjoyment of alcohol, for their abuse of it, or in many of the cases, simply based on a witty quotation referencing alcohol. The reason why this needs to be deleted is because its membership is not crisply defined; lists should include a definition of exactly what criteria are used to determine the members (Lists). Since this one does not, it inherently requires an act of original research by deeming that based on a quote, a behavioral pattern, or something else, each individual is "qualified" to be listed. 17:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify: yes, you may have a citation proving that Judy Garland requested a dress for the concealment of vodka, and that many of Tom Waits' lyrics revolve around drinking. The original research comes when you synthesize these disparate facts into an article claiming that such practices or tendencies make someone an "iconic" drinker. Dylan (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per precedent at Articles for deletion/List of famous smokers (2nd nomination). That article was formerly named List of iconic smokers. The same fundamental issues apply here. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and debate the title later. Wouldn't have thought its likely, but it is adequately sourced. I did not expect to say keep on this one. DGG (talk) 09:35, 9 December 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.