Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide methods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Consensus is clear, and both the nom and the single delete voter have problems with the content, not the topic (and have expressed to me that they have no objections to a speedy keep). It's not fair to have this on AFD when it's currently protected, either. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide methods

Mostly OR, unverifiable, unencyclopedic how-to-kill yourself Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Additionally, it stands a substantial chance of giving this encyclopedia incredibly bad PR. The relevent methods already have their own article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article is perfectly valid and lists the most common ways of commiting suicide in a passive manner, never encouraging the practice of suicide. All entries are easily verifiable. --Sn0wflake 01:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this article could do with some better sourcing, but it's not in anything even vaguely resembling imperative tone. And OR? Where's the OR? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I'm kind of bonded to the material and even willing to do cleanup and wikifying. Ifnord 02:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sn0wflake's comments Paul Cyr 02:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting list. --SPUI (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete is this encyclopedic? Instructions for something destructive and yes, illegal, does not strike me as something that should be in Wikipedia. What's next, how to cover up a murder? --W.marsh 02:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? Knowledge is why we're all here, spreading it is good and hiding it is bad. If people don't know what helps murderers get away then murderers will continue to use those methods. More knowledge is a better defence than less. Simililarly with suicide - the less we talk about it, the greater a problem it is. Ifnord 02:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Well like I said, it's something illegal and destructive... giving out instructions is risky. For one thing, suppose someone follows the instructions and their family sues WP or even the editors of the article? But that's probably beyond the scope of an AfD. Discussing suicide/other harmful or illegal things is one thing, telling people how to do it is another. Just looking at that list, it could point someone who is suicidal to a more effective method... that kind of bothers me. I just don't see how that kind of stuff belongs in an encyclopedia...--W.marsh 02:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I do not see the reasoning for calling suicide illgeal. --Sn0wflake 02:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Assisting a suicide is still illegal in most places. Suicide itself is even illegal some places. It's still destructive wheverer you are. --W.marsh 03:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
            • There could be any number of jurisdictions where suicides (and physician-assisted suicides) are legal or illegal, but that has no baring on this work of text. Yamaguchi先生 03:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this because it is a valid subject. Wikipedia has an article on Rape fantasy as well. Should we delete subject matter based upon a public relations perspective? There are probably thousands of articles that a number of extreme activists and special interest groups from all angles disagree with here. Yamaguchi先生 02:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I haven't really formed an opinion on that article, but just at a glance... does it really contain information that would help someone commit a rape? I don't think so. That's the difference. --W.marsh 02:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • That is not the point I was originally trying to make, but this article doesn't help someone commit suicide any more than Crack_cocaine#Crack_cocaine helps someone make crack cocaine. Yamaguchi先生 02:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
        • It tells many methods that probably aren't obvious to everyone (particularly younger people). It tells which methods are more effective than others. That's what's different than other articles. --W.marsh 03:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Private Butcher 02:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but a bit of tweaking wouldn't go amiss. Saberwyn 02:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment obviously I'm getting outvoted... I have no interest in a big argument where no one really changes their mind. Hopefully I've presented a counterpoint to the inclusion of this article... someone had to. --W.marsh 03:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I could have provided an argument against its inclusion on Wikipedia? Sure... but it would have been totally irrelevant as that's not the correct place. This is. --W.marsh 03:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Sn0wflake. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-21 T 03:12:38 Z
  • Keep on understanding that article's published source already has the same information. If it wasn't a legal/moral issue for the publisher of that book, don't see why it should be for WP. FRS 03:37, 21 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.