Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities with illicit drug history

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 20:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of celebrities with illicit drug history

I vote to delete this article. It is superfluous, does not distinguish between addiction and substantial abuse on one hand and experimentation and occasional use on the other, and serves no real purpose. notime4U

• • Improperly signed, page history says: 209.179.128.200 00:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This nomination wasn't completely submitted. I'm finishing the process, and I vote Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-26 T 16:59 Z

• Keep, I find this article very interesting. I never knew that there was that many celebs who did drugs. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I say keep it too: if you feel the need to distinguish between addiction and experimentation, then that can be done in the full articles. As a list it's interesting. -- Andi.j.thomas 12.38, 17 Feb 2005 (GMT)
  • (This is this user's 2nd edit) DaveTheRed 06:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep...this page is a nice index of "Addiction and it's influence on the arts"
  • Unsigned, page history says: Pants7 1:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • (This is this users 5th edit) DaveTheRed 06:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ugh. This list is difficult to maintain and possibly libelous, despite the disclaimer at the top. DaveTheRed 18:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How many of these names have been verified? A possible legal nightmare, hard to maintain and verify, potentially infinite. Gamaliel 19:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't have much potential to become 'encyclopedic' (ie, useful). Possibly libelous to boot. Feco 22:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on basis of potential libel. The article's very title is problematic in this respect. 23skidoo 00:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it may be cute, but I challenge you to provide a use for it. Also, it's a legal nightmare, and poorly organized. Assuming I want to look up Marion Barry's drug history, I'll look on his page. BigFatDave 00:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The term "illicit drug" is too culturally relative to have any real encyclopedic value as a criterion for list membership. There are hardcore Mormon areas in Utah where most people would consider coffee an "illicit drug"; should we list every coffee-drinking celebrity? Should we list people who drank alcohol during Prohibition? More to the point, a lot of people would object to people who use "soft" drugs, such as marijuana, being included on this list, which labels them "druggies" by implication. Whatever your views on drug use might be, most of us agree there's a huge, huge difference between marijuana use and, say, heroin addiction, so it's pretty much useless to group them together in a list like this. Lists of notable people who use(d) a specific substance, such as List of famous opiate addicts, are much more useful and encyclopedic. /sɪzlæk˺/ 07:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not to be too pedantic, but "illicit" means "illegal", which is an obvious bright line (coffee is not illegal in Utah, last time I looked). --Calton | Talk 04:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete another problematic, sockpuppet supported list. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I've implicitly expressed my opinion by editing the page so that is now a "list of famous people whose drug use has been discussed in public, together with the source citation for that discussion." Since currently none of them are sourced, I've removed every name from the page (and placed them on the talk page for the article). Interested editors can move them back when and as proper source citations are found. To keep the list from being utterly empty, I've added one name to the list, Jack London, whose hashish party while cruising in the Solomon islands is attested to by one biographer and by a photograph] from a university site captioned "Group photo from the 'Hasheesh Party' in the Solomon Islands, during the voyage of the Snark." I think the page can be kept as long as proper sources are provided for every entry. If, after a reasonable period of time, there are only a handful of such well-sourced entries, then the page should be deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. not very useful, un-encyclopaedic, potentially libelous. Megan1967 05:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's nothing wrong with this list so long as those on it have either been arrested for posession or publicly acknowledged a prior addiction.--Centauri 06:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per, um, /sɪzlæk˺/ . FreplySpang 16:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too long and too broad if were to be actually comprehensive, and a NPOV nightmare, to boot.--Calton | Talk 04:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - How many of those entries are/were based on tabloid claims or rumor mills? How many celebrities we want to sue WP for defamation? Even if the list is purged, it is potential vandal magnet or godsend for POV pushers (POV being "all celebs are narcs" and there are those who think so in this world). Possible drug use of someone famous should be handled in individual articles (in case the celeb in question has admitted the use or been sentenced for it) or possibly in the article about drug abuse or something similar - Skysmith 09:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It could be libel, but if they publically admit to using drugs or having used drugs in the past, there is nothing that could be done. Keep a list of sources as recommended, and delete if nothing is done to positivly change this page. --Aika 16:13, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If they publically admit to using drugs or having tried them, we have the right to the information. Its an excelent resource. I just used it for an English Speech discussing Marijuana. I stongly suggest keeping it as long as people site their sources.--Andrew 11:09, APL 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but institute a strict rule of requiring a source Tuf-Kat 04:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This information is duplicated in other Wikipedia articles, the article carries a potential for libel, and the category is too broad and undefined.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.