Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of known 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 was delete. Majorly 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

List of known opiate addicts

 * — (View AfD)

Per this AfD and this AfD. Most of the sources are far from reliable, the list seems to ignore the difference between consumption and addiction, and someone will eventually sneak in a name that will make his/her lawyer's day. A liability. yandman 08:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Ohconfucius 09:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 09:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Budgiekiller 09:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the nom, runs serious risk of OR/POV that lands the project in trouble. --Dweller 10:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Since most of the dead are referred to as merely "deceased" and only a handful are referred to as "died of natural causes", a reader could imply that all those marked "deceased" died of drug-related problems. That doesn't appear to be the case; the first six persons I looked at marked "deceased" had indeed died of natural causes. --70.72.19.133 12:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to List of known opiate users and keep. The concept of "addiction" is probably contested enough that it ought not to figure in the title, but none of the cited concerns really make a case for deletion.  It remains the case that quite a number of people, from Samuel Taylor Coleridge to Rush Limbaugh, are known for having taken opiates, and there is no good reason not to have a list of them. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Move and Keep as per Smerdis of Tlön. This is an extremely good article, one that I can see being used a lot. However, I admit that someone needs to sort out those sources, but they are not so bad that it needs to be deleted. The most drastic change would be to delete everything that is not sourced reliably. J Milburn 17:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This has absolutely GOT to be the most fatuous, useless, incomplete and unreferenced list in the whole encyclopedia. What does "known" mean? There are literally millions of opiate addicts known to the appropriate medical services. Is there quoted, compelling evidence that the living people on the list have been, AND CURRENTLY REMAIN, addicted? This has got to be an absolute happy hunting ground for any Lawyer/attorney with an ounce of get-up-and-go. Remove it before a lawsuit bankrupts us.--Anthony.bradbury 22:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if the title were fixed, this would still not be encyclopaedic. GassyGuy 22:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, each entry is well sourced. If you want to change the title from "addict" to "user" I would support that POV change because of the negative connotations of the word "addict". Also notice that each entry has an article in Wikipedia already, and this in not a telephone book list. This is less subjective than the "alcoholic" list, everyone has a drink, but not everyone uses opiates and mentions it in an interview, is arrested for possession, or dies from an overdose. I agree deceased is not a good label. for dead people the birth and death year would look better. An an overdose tag added for those that died of an overdose. Also an arrest for possession would be a good tag. Also note no one has mentioned a specific Wikipedia rule that it is in violation of. The list is verifiable and isn't a telephone list or a memorial. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As I recall I voted keep last time because there's some historic/cultural significance to opiate use, moreso than most other drugs. However I'm no longer sure this is the best way to deal with that. Maybe "opiate use in history and fiction", or something, would be better. As a list there might be too great a risk of non-notable or libellous additions.--T. Anthony 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd add though that on reflection I'd have a slight problem with "opiate users." Opiates are historically significant for pain management and are still used on occasion. When I was in intensive care I had to use an opiate for pain once or twice, but I did so as little as possible (less than the doctors wanted) as it made me feel strange. Still I could be classed as an "opiate user", if only for a brief time, but I find that notion vaguely absurd or unuseful. If you switch to "opiate user" could you somehow make it clear this is recreational use?--T. Anthony 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. These lists are a minefield both legally and practically. How much opiates must be comsumed how frequently to qualify? Is use at any point in the subject's life enough? Too subjective and unencyclopedic. Should meet the same fates as the alcoholics list. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete which the entries are largely verified, albeit from questionable sources, the scope of the article is unencyclopedic and arbitrary.-- danntm T C 00:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete can o'worms, and per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information and legal considerations among other things. Dragomiloff 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources are highly dubious at best. Bulbous 03:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unclear scope (former users who've quit? People for whom it isn't known if they're still using? "Known opiate addicts" is a lawsuit waiting to happen there.) Way too much potential for abuse, OR, or some malicious idiot to slip in libel, and inherent WP:NPOV problems (who is an "addict", what makes that "known"?) Seraphimblade 15:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to, well, that is a problem, "List of known opiate users" might indicate they are still using the drugs, which at a given time might no longer be true. A better name, someone? highlunder 11:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and move per J Milburn -- Karl Meier 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete give the huge potential for WP:BLP problems and trouble deciding on the right scope, I don't think this can be salvaged. People's opiate use and additiction can be covered in their own articles.  Eluchil404 02:45, 14 January 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.