Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobacco references in music


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Tobacco references in music

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deeply, deeply problematic WP:OR. The (originally researched) list itself falls under WP:IINFO, but the real problem is the essay, with statements like "a list like this might help expose shady (possibly unlawful) deals being made under the table between the music industry and the tobacco industry regarding product placement advertising" or "The implication is that Rolling Stone may not have fully supported Hillary Clinton with an endorsement unless and until she promised in some way to promote tobacco products" or "Jann Wenner, the co-founder and publisher of Rolling Stone, is an openly gay white male, and the biggest threat and competition for the object of gay white male's affection may be a non-gay white female". In short, this article is pretty much everything Wikipedia is not. Kolbasz (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Please give me a couple of hours to improve everything.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by H. Nicole Young (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - A lot of work went into this article but unfortunately, as it currently stands, should be deleted for WP:OR. Meatsgains (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - If this were an article listing songs which had been individually, or as a group, covered in reliable sources about, say, songs influencing kids to smoke, that might be acceptable (depending on the sources, of course). Unfortunately, this looks to be 100% WP:OR -- loading a bunch of song lyrics (the only references are lyrics websites and youtube), doing a text search for e.g. "cigarette", and copying it into the list. It saddens me to see this much work done before there's an intervention, but, Wikipedia doesn't cover anything that hasn't already been noted as significant by reliable sources. If nobody has said it's significant that a particular song mentions smoking, then there's no place for saying so on Wikipedia. There are sources for the lyrics which show they do mention tobacco, but bringing them together yourself, when it hasn't already been done by others, is original research, which isn't allowed (because, again, we only include what reliable sources say, not what patterns we see or aspects we think are important). If you think there's a way to salvage/rework it, know that this discussion will be open until at least the 14th (7 days from nomination). One option you might want to request is "userfication", which is when an article is moved to a place like User:H. Nicole Young/Tobacco references in music. It's removed from categories, not indexed by Google, and not linked from anywhere, but the content still exists to work on it and, ideally, eventually to move back to be an article again. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Do not delete Example of similar Wikipedia entries that are not deleted:  The "list of tobacco free music artists" in this article is similar to the "list of countries for which gay marriage has been legalized" in the "Gay marriage" article.  The entries on both lists are:  1) finite, 2) dynamic as events change (e.g., if a country's stance on gay marriage changes or if a previously "tobacco free" music artist does a music video extolling tobacco use and is removed from the list of tobacco free music artists), and 3) extremely helpful and critical for people doing research in the respective fields of gay rights and tobacco advertising (to name just one field for which the list will be helpful -- and if the issue is that the field of teens' exposure to tobacco references in music is not as notable and important as the field of gay rights issues, please be clear this is a main argument being made in favor of deleting this article so focus can be directed at addressing this aspect of this article's problems).


 * This is not "original research": As for the problem of this being original research, this may be the equivalent of saying a list of capital cities in the United States is original research.  The comprehensive lists in this article (once completed) can probably be generated in a day with the right computer program, and such lists have most likely already been generated decades ago by people in the field of tobacco advertising, so this can not be qualified as original research.  These lists only allow the general public access to the same encyclopedia the tobacco industry has.  For example, a parent of a five year old may be well aware (from personal experience in viewing the video several times with his/her child) that the 2014 music video for Idina Menzel/Michael Buble's "Baby, It's Cold Outside" song, which features the child versions of these singers dancing to the tune, does not contain any tobacco references (just a few months earlier Idina Menzel had won an Academy Award for her portrayal of "Elsa" in the popular Disney song "Let It Go" from the movie "Frozen"), yet a parent who is considering buying the published version of "Elsa singing Baby, It's Cold Outside" from Idina Menzel's "Holiday Wishes" Christmas album may be unaware (unless they make a habit of screening artists and songs on the lists in this article for tobacco references before purchasing any music for their children) that Menzel's published version of the song on her album (and the version also being played on the radio and streaming music sites) contains the tobacco reference "maybe just a cigarette more."


 * Subject is appropriate material for any encyclopedia, but especially Wikipedia: While it is open for debate (and is a possible Ph.D. thesis topic elsewhere) that the above example of Idina Menzel's "Baby, It's Cold Outside" is a subtle tobacco advertising technique employed by tobacco advertisers to target 5 year-old Disney fans, what is not debatable is the information supporting this premise: 1) That Idina Menzel/Michael Buble's "Baby, It's Cold Outside" music video contains no references to tobacco, 2) that Idina Menzel/Michael Buble's "Baby, It's Cold Outside" published song contains a tobacco reference, and that reference is the song lyric "maybe just a cigarette more" and 3) that Idina Menzel's only other tobacco reference in her music career (though she has several other tobacco references if one were to do a cross-reference search of her name in the future(?) Wikipedia article entitle "Tobacco references in TV shows" for her acting work on the TV show "Glee") is the song lyric "she's smoking like five packs of cigarettes a day" from Menzel's 1998 song "Think Too Much", which was featured on Menzel's debut album "Still I Can't Be Still."  This information should be readily available from any respectable encyclopedia in 2016.


 * Most, if not all, of the information in this article is published elsewhere: It is not clear if it counts as "published elsewhere", but a version of this list [minus several additions made over the last few days while the list was (thankfully) made accessible and readily available for easy editing at Wikipedia] is already published elsewhere.   The data is considered critical for any radio stations or music streaming companies interested in streaming "tobacco free" music, anybody interested in screening a song or music artist for tobacco references before purchasing it, anybody interested in pursuing research in product placement advertising in music, and anybody interested in pursuing potential litigation against tobacco advertisers [as opposed to (or in addition to) litigation directly against tobacco companies, which has proven to be futile, at least in the United States, ever since the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement has given immunity to tobacco companies from such litigation], among countless other uses.  More time is needed to invite other researchers to add their input to this discussion and to add their data to these lists.  Please delay the deletion date by at least a week, if possible, taking into account the special circumstances.


 * It may be argued this list belongs under the Wikipedia page of "Tobacco advertising" or "Product placement" or "Tobacco" under the subheading "Songs referencing tobacco in English speaking countries", but this may prove to be too cumbersome for these articles, especially as other related (and important -- and well overdue, imho) Wikipedia articles are added in the future entitled "Tobacco references in movies", "Tobacco references in TV shows", and "Tobacco references in video games". As an example, due to recent research carried out by researchers in Britain addressing the effects of tobacco and alcohol references in music videos on teenagers, there is a push to get the British government to consider adding warning labels to music videos referencing tobacco .  It would be useful for politicians wishing to write such legislation to have easy access to a "list of music videos referencing tobacco" as a starting point without having to dig too deeply into unrelated articles and subject areas.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:31A0:3841:61FF:924C:724F (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)  — 2601:645:C300:31A0:3841:61FF:924C:724F (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2601:645:C300:31A0:3841:61FF:924C:724F (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.


 * Delete. Since the essay will have to go regardless, that leaves only the list, which is pretty much the embodiment of an indiscriminate collection of information; one could perform the same exercise with any word in the English language. &#8209; Iridescent 18:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also add that in the unlikely event that this is kept, the ridiculous "List of tobacco-free artists" section certainly needs to go. It's not just original research, it's laughably inaccurate original research; as an example, of the four artists named in Tobacco references in music ("Justin Bieber, Bob Hope, Tony Kakko (Sonta Arctica), Led Zeppelin") Bieber smokes like a chimney, Bob Hope was the face of Chesterfield cigarettes, Jimmy Page was rarely photographed not smoking (and wrote the lyric Spent my days with a woman unkind, Smoked my stuff and drank all my wine), and Tony Kakko is an obscure Finnish heavy metal singer whom I doubt one reader in 10,000 has heard of. &#8209; Iridescent 06:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Total essay composed of OR. Also, one mention of cigarette, tobacco, or another product in a song is not likely to inspire people to start smoking (and stopping smoking seems to be the intent of this article: see Soapbox). If say, a song has been widely critisized for promoting tobacco, then it would be worth including in something like this. These tiny mentions aren't any more notable than songs mentioning people with red hair are in the context of a hair dye article. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an essay and a list based on original research by a Wikipedia editor. The introductory section is staggering and not at all appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. There is certainly potential for an actual encyclopedia article based on the topic of tobacco in popular music, but such an article must be built from the ground up, based on summarizing what reliable sources say about the topic. No searches of lyric databases can be included in any such article, as that is the very essence of original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Only if a reliable source discusses the tobacco content of a given song should that song be included in any such future article. But this list article needs to go. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't really follow some of the assumptions being made. Firstly, you say "it's similar to the 'list of countries for which gay marriage has been legalized' in the 'Gay marriage' article" – there isn't a list in that article, do you mean the timeline table? In any case that argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – personally I am not a fan of including lists on Wikipedia as I think it is unencyclopedic, and that's why I disagree with your statement "This information should be readily available from any respectable encyclopedia in 2016"... that's not what an encyclopedia should be about. The comparison is not valid anyway as the timeline is about actual events (the date of same-sex marriage legalization in each country) and mostly cited from reliable sources, not a list about a topic... if you include a list like this one, you could have a list about any subject mentioned in songs – alcohol, children, forests, etc.


 * You claim that this article will be helpful to people researching tobacco advertising – according to WP:NOTDIRECTORY Wikipedia is not intended to be a repository of "helpful information". Then there is the statement "it would be useful for politicians wishing to write such [anti-tobacco] legislation to have easy access to a 'list of music videos referencing tobacco'"... why would a list of songs or videos affect a government's decision whether or not to introduce such legislation, when such lyrics have been around for decades without causing governments to implement any measures, and ahead of proven links such as deaths from lung cancer or other diseases? And why wouldn't the politicians have access to such information anyway? Radio stations and other companies have been reviewing songs for content for decades without Wikipedia's help.


 * I am also concerned about the imposition of your own guidelines and criteria for inclusion of songs/artists on the list – Wikipedia's guidelines are determined by consensus, not by an individual. The use of the phrase "tobacco-free artists" is also problematic – we have no idea if the artist singing about tobacco actually smokes in real life, or vice versa. The sentence "it is presumed that product placement advertising, where an artist may be paid by an advertiser to incorporate certain products in their artwork, is included in these tobacco advertising restrictions" is taken from your own blog and may well be libelous if used on Wikipedia. Your assertion that similar "Tobacco references in xxxx" articles are "important -- and well overdue" in your opinion implies that you are going against WP:ADVOCATE – you are perfectly entitled to your own views on possible tobacco advertising in the media, but Wikipedia articles should be impartial. Richard3120 (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Wikipedia's function is not to right great wrongs, but that's what seems to be primary motivation for creating this article as well as any future similar articles. Moreover, the mentioning of specific individuals seems potentially problematic per WP:BLP. I am also concerned that this Teahouse post by the article's creator might indicate some confusion between Wikipedia and a personal website. Some of this information may be relevant in articles about individual songs if properly supported by reliable sources and not undue, or perhaps even something like Tobacco advertising or Tobacco smoking is used in a proper context. Wikipedia, however, is not really intended to be a game changer or used as a database of information for possible future individual research; It's simply intended to reflect what independent, reliable sources say about a particular subject, which is something that this article in my opinion clearly does not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a completely notable (and quite interesting) topic – see, e.g., this article in the Musical Quarterly of July 1932. Among the many composers who've written in praise of tobacco are Thomas Ravenscroft ("Tobacco fumes away"), Telemann and Bach (Erbauliche Gedanken eines Tobackrauchers, BWV 515a); John Lennon was rather less complimentary in I'm So Tired. The present content should be completely removed – Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it appears to make unsupported claims about living people. No objection if that is accomplished by WP:TNT. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: This proposed article is wrong on so many levels. Even the restrictive Guidelines for adding songs and artists to the lists:. Good luck with that. We do not engage in article ownership here and we freely allow anyone to change / edit / publish any playful change to any article and none are static. This would be vandalised to hell. I can't even manage to keep Larry (cat) like I would like it because other editors have diffferent opinions and freely assert them in article space. Finally, this copied from the article: Below are lists of reputable singers with at least one Grammy nomination who have unknown status with regard to tobacco references. If an artist meets the above tobacco-free criteria and is added to one of the list of tobacco-free artists, or if at least one tobacco reference is found for one of these artists, please remove the artist from the list below after adding the artist to the appropriate list above. Feel free to add other reputable artists of unknown tobacco status in alphabetical order for others to research. is entirely engaging in and publishing original research and this is not what Wikipedia is for.  I need a nerve pill after reading your article. lol.  Fylbecatulous talk 17:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Take your pick - WP:NOR, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN, etc. Sergecross73   msg me  20:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have removed the long list of songs, which was an apparent copyright violation. This topic could make for an interesting article if it summarized statements about tobacco references in music in reliable sources. As it is currently written, however, it is misguided. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * for info, it wasn't a copyvio... the list was taken from the creating editor's own blog. So it contravenes WP:RS and WP:OR rather than WP:COPYVIO. Richard3120 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The site in question does not have a CC license statement on it, and I do not see a notice on the talk page or in the edit history stating that what you say is true. Without such evidence, we have to err on the side of assuming a COPYVIO. A second-year law student should know better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * She has stated in a query at the Wikipedia Teahouse that the blog is (quote) "my personal encyclopedia of tobacco references in music". Richard3120 (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is looking more and more like WP:NOTHERE/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. See this, wedging details about smoking (and, granted, other information) into Baby, It's Cold Outside. &mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 00:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

H. Nicole Young (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoever took the lists down, please put them back up or let me know where there is a copy of the latest version of the site before your edit. It is quite an ordeal for me to update this list on my web site at  (it involves converting a pdf file of a dozen or so pages of this list to several jpg pages and then uploading all the jpg pages to the site -- even if I want to make one little change -- so I have been doing updates here instead) and I do not have a copy of my latest edits.  I was expecting to make a copy of everything tomorrow night in case the site gets deleted (which, sorry, but would be one of the dumbest things ever done at Wikipedia, but not much else I can do about it -- as long as it is public information who wrote what comments about deleting this article so school children can laugh their heads off about it 100 years from now).  I wasn't expecting somebody to delete the lists now.  I clearly mention here (above), in the Teahouse, and it also in the reference list (supporting the presumption that product placement advertising is considered advertising (and therefore illegal) for the purposes of laws that restrict tobacco advertising, i.e., I am citing the non-encyclopedic biased, researched arguments and contents of my web site -- not these lists).  This is an extremely important (to the public) personal encyclopedia that I am tired of upkeeping for the last four years that needs to be at Wikipedia for others to edit and add to (while still allowing me to do my own inputs, etc). It is also clear that lyrical excerpts are taken from several public sites "including the artists own web sites", they are attributed to the artist who sang them, and they are only small snippets that either I heard on the radio myself or my kids told me about or that I read in an article, whatever. This was not even a "close call" on copyright by the longest stretch of the imagination so I am not sure where that argument is coming from.
 * With a wiki, when someone removes content from an article, it's still visible through the history. This articles history is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_references_in_music&action=history and the version after your last edit is here. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 03:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To find old versions of any article, click on "View History" at the top of the page, and then click the date and time of the version of the article you would like to view. (Do not click Edit on the resulting page; only edit the latest version of any page.) The version you have asked for is this one from July 11. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Justine Bieber and Bob Hope are tobacco-free artists according the the strict guidelines outlined in this article. If you would like to find them at "Tobacco references in movies" or "List of entertainers who smoke" be my guest, but the title of the article is "Tobacco references in music."   You are free to find a tobacco lyric in one of their songs or a tobacco reference in one of their music videos or musicals (did Bob Hope smoke while singing in a musical? IDK), add them to one of the appropriate lists according to the guidelines, and remove them from the list of "tobacco free artists (in music)" (But note: you better do that before this article is deleted -- if you want me to add it to my web site, I mean).  For now, they stay.H. Nicole Young (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Every person in this article either has a Wikipedia page or has been nominated for at least one Grammy award or both, so it is still not clear what the difference is between this list and the List of Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual People -- except the criteria for "notability" here is much more clear than on that list (and can be changed or added to if anybody wants -- just say what it is first, like -- this person had a top ten hit on Billboard's Hot 100 -- fine with me, tell it to the Wikipedia editors, though, not me because it's not my decision anymore once this becomes an article and takes its own life, I hope, right?). Please do not get me wrong.  I am not arguing to take the List of Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual People down.  To the contrary, as a lesbian who is probably going to end up on that list some day (but probably only after I am long gone and the importance of my arguments "way back in 2016" finally begin to get recognized with Wikipedia editors! - lol), I think that the List of Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual People article is possibly the most important article at Wikipedia in 2016, next to this article, of course.  Again, the difference being that the "important gay people" list will be gone (for good reasons like it won't matter so much any more) while the "List of tobacco references in music" will still be at Wikipedia in some form 100 years from now (like under the article entitled  "Blatant examples of product placement advertising to teenagers by the tobacco industry for the 80 years from 1935 to 2015 before the Wikipedia article Tobacco references in music made it blatantly obvious to anybody who so much as even perused the lists exactly what was going on so that there was an abrupt end to this total BS, finally, from that year on after decades of governments around the world unsuccessfully trying to put a stop to it through legislative means").  K -- it's a bit long for a title, but you get the drift.  :)  Again, if you disagree with this -- that this list will be around in some form 100 years from now while the list of gays won't -- it's okay.  Just make sure you put your name to that argument here.H. Nicole Young (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The song "Wonderful Copenhagen" mentions the phrase "wonderful Copenhagen" umpteen times (I think it's 22 times? Would be nice to know if somebody would replace the lists).  So if you are playing this song to your 5 yo in the car, do you think your 5yo will know the difference between Copenhagen the city and Copenhagen the chewing tobacco when the next song played is "Copenhagen" by Robert Earl Keane  which also mentions something like "wonderful Copenhagen" umpteen times?  Again, the lists have strict guidelines -- if it mentions a tobacco product, it's there.  Let the person winning the Nobel Prize for their thesis project on how Frank Loesser's lyrics are the single biggest cause of cancer deaths in the world decide why that song is titled Wonderful Copenhagen, not some arbitrary Wikipedia editor.  Again, if the rules of the article are followed (whatever they are -- they have to be clearly defined), there is no "inaccurate" entry.  There is only a song that does not follow the rules or a song that follows the rules and Wonderful Copenhagen follows the rules.  It stays.H. Nicole Young (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is great that you have a passion and a cause and that you have done this research. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy, and it is not a place for original research. This is basic Wikipedia policy. Please read this policy information: No original research, and NOTADVOCATE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * H. Nicole Young, claiming that "Wonderful Copenhagen" is a reference to an obscure American brand of chewing tobacco makes about as much sense as claiming that The Star Spangled Banner is a reference to Star Tobacco International, or that Bat out of Hell is about British American Tobacco. By your warped logic every album ever made is a tobacco reference, since vinyl albums are inevitably labelled "long player" and Player's is a brand of tobacco. Please read up on Wikipedia policies before you work any further on this, as your combination of agenda-pushing, original research and casual racism is definitely not what Wikipedia is looking for. &#8209; Iridescent 17:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - The above reasons are all legitimate. The article appears to be an WP:ESSAY and looks to be based off of original research.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research/essay. Frankly, after reading some of the above comments from article creator, I'm not sure if this isn't some elaborate trolling. rgds 92.2.44.196 (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Blatant OR with no secure basis for the criteria selected. I can empathise with the underlying philosophy but the construction is irrational and POV. Has no place here.  Velella  Velella Talk 08:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced WP:OR, also complete trivia. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  10:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. "the biggest threat and competition for the object of gay white male's affection may be a non-gay white female" is very problematic if only for the blatant racism. One wonders, first of all, how an NGWF is competition (because she might swing the intended object of the GWM's desire?), but really, what does whiteness have to do with it? GWM can't desire GNWM? Drmies (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When I read that in the article history, I started to wonder if we had all been the subject of some bizarre attempt at trolling. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, or Userfy until the article creator gets a clue. This is amateur hour on a big scale. "Guidelines for adding songs and artists to the lists"? WTF? That has got to go. Articles do not contain their own how-to-write-this-article guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2016 (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.