Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of iconic smokers


 * 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

List of iconic smokers
A rather lengthy and pointless list that clearly shows bias. The fact that there are (Deceased) tags after many of the people listed are clear signs that someone is trying to discourage smoking. This information is irrelevant to the list itself. It also contains some people who are obviously not "iconic". Who decides what is "iconic"? The list clearly needs major revision and possible deletion. GShton 22:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - not sure Wikipedia is about this kind of seemingly endless list. Cordless Larry 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Significant problems with neutrality, relevance, objectivity, etc. Too many editorial comments about other characteristics or traits of those listed that have nothing to do with the "article". The introduction offers no clear criteria as to who ought to be on the list. Matter of opinion as to who is "famous" or whether someone is "clearly recognized" as being identified with smoking. Too many unsubstantiated statements as well. Agent 86 23:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for clear NPOV and soapbox. If this were genuinely an article about examples of media portrayal of smoking or something (which might be OR anyway), it wouldn't make a point of detailing the health problems of each individual.  Look at the Colin Ferrell entry, which ends with the weasel sentence "he is also said to have a bad smoker's cough" or the following Kevin Federline entry 'mentioning' that he has bronchitis (with no citation or evidence of causality for either entry).  I have no problem with someone doing a study about the effects of smoking, and the nice thing is there are many groups that HAVE done such studies, and have posted the results on their websites.  Wikipedia is not the place to make a pointed anti-smoking article. -Markeer 00:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as soap box, NPOV, NN, having no value as an article and for being a hit-list . Why else are those 'deceased' markers there? ;) Now if you'll excuse me.. *goes outside and lights up* QuagmireDog 03:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain I've struck through my above vote and reasoning. Whilst I'm not convinced that 'iconic' is something that's going to prove servicable as a concept for inclusion, I'm no longer comfortable with voting for deletion considering the work that the article contributors just put in. Also, now the deceased markers are gone, hitmen will have to go the extra mile in order to gather info <.< QuagmireDog 07:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Useless "in popular culture" list. Walter Raleigh is missing. Pavel Vozenilek 11:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. All different kinds of smoking are firmly embedded into culture. There's no reason to get rid of this article. It's informative, and offers noteworthy information on where certain famous people stand in relation to smoking.--Josh 17:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I thought the deceased tags are useful in a mixed list of living and dead people, but I have removed them. I agree it could use another thorough revision. (look at the talk page for some of the previous efforts.) Just remove anyone with unsubstantiated claims, and add walter raleigh. &mdash; Zanaq (?) 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Keep, but modify to remove the health aspects and deceased markers. I believe that NPOV is the only issue with this list, and by making it an objective list, it will be more encyclopedic. People like Edward R. Murrow and Jean-Paul Sartre are iconic smokers -- it is part of their image -- and should be listed with others. --Guroadrunner 04:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: the additional problem is determining an "objective" standard. By what criteria is someone iconic, and by what standards do we determine that smoking is part of their identity or "image" (especially further back in time when there were far more smokers as a percentage of the population)? Given the prevailing norms of the past, a list of "iconic" non-smokers would be shorter. In fact, how is "image" defined? With your two examples, I doubt "smoker" is the identifying characteristic that leaps to someone's mind. Agent 86 19:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kwertii 09:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, this is a subjective list; who is to say what defines iconic? RFerreira 22:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Canjth 16:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Extreme Cleanup, I strongly disagree with this article's nomination for deletion. First we need citations and a lot. We can then rename to list of famous smokers. How is this in anyways any different from List of celebrity cocaine addicts or List of iconic drinkers? I don't believe we should delete an article for NPOV if the problem can be fixed with a cleanup, which I believe it can in this case. Valoem   talk  20:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The page itself is based upon NPOV and should not have existed in the first place along with the pages you listed as they are simply pointless lists made for the sake of making lists.GShton 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: List should not be renamed to 'list of famous smokers' since that is too long a list, and unmaintainable. see Articles_for_deletion/List_of_smokers. He who claims this list is based on POV probably hasn't read the discussion page. &mdash; Zanaq (?) 05:38, 4 October 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.