Talk:heavy drinking

heavy drinking
Is this really specifically "Excessive drinking to the point of drunkenness", or is it just "drinking" + "heavily" (eg. heavy eating, heavy coughing, heavy reading)? Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think they're pretty much the same thing, aren't they? Theoretically, you could have someone who drinks a lot of alcohol but spreads it out all day long so as to not get drunk, but I think that's pushing it. Delete --BB12 (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to rfd. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Citations could help, but not for attestation. If there is "a lot of" usage along the line of "heavy drinking" leading to "drunkenness" (under any of its many Wikisaurus synonyms}, that would provide support for our intuitions/experience of the use of this expression. But, it seems to me extremely unreasonable that including "Y", the frequent or even inevitable result of "X", in the definition of "X" should, by itself, make "X" a keeper when it would not otherwise be one. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Kill. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted by Mglovesfun. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July 2012
Is this really specifically "Excessive drinking to the point of drunkenness", or is it just "drinking" + "heavily" (eg. heavy eating, heavy coughing, heavy reading)? Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think they're pretty much the same thing, aren't they? Theoretically, you could have someone who drinks a lot of alcohol but spreads it out all day long so as to not get drunk, but I think that's pushing it. Delete --BB12 (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to rfd. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Citations could help, but not for attestation. If there is "a lot of" usage along the line of "heavy drinking" leading to "drunkenness" (under any of its many Wikisaurus synonyms}, that would provide support for our intuitions/experience of the use of this expression. But, it seems to me extremely unreasonable that including "Y", the frequent or even inevitable result of "X", in the definition of "X" should, by itself, make "X" a keeper when it would not otherwise be one. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I meant to take this to RFD, not RFV. Should I just close this now? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, use and . I will let you do it as the original nominator. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Struck. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)