Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regular users of amphetamine


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

List of regular users of amphetamine

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I really do not think this is an appropriate topic for a standalone list - insofar as I can tell, we don't have similar lists for alcohol, marijuana, or cocaine just to name a few, nor would we categorize people by their use of substances. None of these people are notable for drug use, and the criteria of "regular user" is totally subjective. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm at a loss to see what value this list has. I can understand why we have lists of prime ministers, of species of bacteria, and of people who studied at a particular school, because these lists are helpful to users in identifying commonalities between the members of the lists, and in identifying obvious outliers, but it seems to me that the variety of users of amphetamines is potentially so large, and the commonalities (other than that of drug use) likely so indecipherable, that it is impossible for this list to provide any useful content for our readers. I'm abstaining from expressing a view on the future of this article until I've seen what other people have to say about this page, whether positive or negative. RomanSpa (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like I picked the wrong week to !vote delete - Humor aside, too indiscriminate of a list. --MuZemike 17:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was a bit conflicted about this nomination given that most of the arguments for deletion fell into the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFF (comment from &spades;PMC&spades; about similar articles not existing for other addictive substance) and WP:NOTUSEFUL (the claims about commonalities between drug users being so indecipherable the article would be useful). However, I couldn't find any sources about or non-trivially discussing notable people using drugs, which makes me !vote Delete for being an potentially WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. If this article is to be kept, it should be a list of people notable for using drugs, with a criteria of how to determine that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as likely to operate as an attack-page list. Similar to list of convicted drug users also nominated AfD. This list even starts with a note that it is incomplete. On what basis is someone unfortunate enough to be included or excluded? Are those included selected because a WP editor wants to name-and-shame for drug use? That's not the role of an encyclopaedia. Elemimele (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am !voting Delete too, but I'm not seeing how the list is an attack page, plus it is generally not a good idea to assume an article was made for malicious purposes. This article is the creator (L3pr3(h^un2014, and man would I not choose a username like that)'s first and only contribution, and the creator started the page as a short list with citations properly formatted and a lead as neutral as those of other articles, which makes me think the creator had encyclopedic intentions but may have not been fully aware of why the list wouldn't be acceptable on Wikipedia. Stating an editor would want to "name-and-shame" a person not only doesn't follow the principle of WP:AGF, but also is an unlikely accusation given that they cited sources stating they were users of the drug. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, maybe I didn't put that well, and I'm open to the idea that I'm completely wrong! I certainly didn't want to accuse any individual editor, or those who have populated the list so far, of using it as an attack page. I was more worried that if someone in the future found themselves unwillingly in a scandal because of an amphetamine addiction, it would be all too easy for an ill-willed person to use this list as a way to draw attention to, and publicize their problem. Although I assume good faith of editors where possible, I think we have to be open to the idea that some people, generally from outside the WP community, may attempt to use WP for the wrong purposes (and that's why we have a helpful team of admins). I felt, perhaps wrongly, that this list was particularly liable to becoming a target of that sort of mis-use from outside. I would have less concern about the list were I certain that it could remain a reliable historical record of those notable people who've battled addiction, but even then, it runs the risk of focussing too much attention on that aspect of their life without the balancing information of everything else they did. Though of course these people have their main articles for that. Elemimele (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the clarification. From what I've seen, you've just gotten started contributing to the site this year, and are new it, so I'll let you know this. These are hugely valid concerns, and user contributions for publicity (WP:ADVERTISEMENT) or personal attack reasons is an all-too unfortunate reality on here. However, you must keep in mind that (most of the time) we keep or delete articles based on a subject's coverage and notability, not whether another user will use it for bad intentions. Issues of balance, aka WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and attack potential are separate issues of cleanup and user behavior, not AFD issues, although there are exceptions where articles are deleted not only for being not notable but also for obviously (emphasis on obviously) being attack pages. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Grotesquely inappropriate and unwise. Gildir (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an incredibly stupid list that probably can't be sourced without a violation of a patient's privacy, and if even if they're dead, it's just unseemly to categorize people like this.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as this seems to be a borderline meet of WP:LISTN - you can quite easily find lists of celebrities who have taken meth. The reliability of these sources is iffy which is why this is only a weak keep, but this does seem to be a reasonable topic to have a list on. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's an example list in what is generally considered a reliable source. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's not conflate methamphetamine and amphetamine. TompaDompa (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh true, that's a silly oversight on my part. I guess I didn't really expect a list for the non-meth amphetamine since well, what is the point of that? On the other hand, given that it's medication, I wouldn't expect the reaction that this has gotten so... whatever. Probably doesn't meet LISTN after all. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete If this were a category, I'd say it's WP:NONDEFINING. The same kind of logic applies here – the list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and should be deleted per WP:DELREASON (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia). I can elaborate on that if anybody wants me to, but it seems that we are (mostly) on the same page here. I'll also note that while only one person currently on this list is still alive, the very concept of the list is a WP:BLP nightmare. TompaDompa (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is the type of thing that borders on non-defining. Since this can apply at any time in a person's life it is not at all defining in the overall scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2021 (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.