Talk:Internet suicide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

this is real puma

"In the Africa"?!?!? Probably the original article said "US" instead? This seems like a stupid prank

I don't know what genius thought Africa had laws. Each individual African country has laws. Africa as a whole does not. --WanderingHermit


"Even in Japan, where most of such pacts have occurred, they still represent only 2% of all group suicide-pacts, and less than .01% of all suicides combined. "

To which year does this percentage apply? --Apollonius 16:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though all of this is true, it's not very helpful but thanks anyway.

This article isn't very clear... is Internet suicide when you meet on the internet and plan to do suicide? --Kookoo275 19:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't it be ironic if the person who wanted to commit suicide on the internet is among us right now?66.109.197.11 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be weird if a person that wanted to commit suicide is on this article right now? 66.109.197.11 02:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myspace Suicide

Someone needs to put in a bit about the "do me a favore" kid.J'onn J'onzz 13:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion?

I wouldn't mind this article being put on AfD, but the {prod} seems too facile to me. The term is indeed, of course, a neologism; but it is a new word arguably created to describe a new phenomenon. The text of the article does not read like a dictionary definition either. It is not necessarily as well cited or organized as it should be, but the tone generally discusses the concept, its history and occurrence, and so on... exactly what a WP article should do. LotLE×talk 02:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I think it needs some evidence that the term is widely used outside of Wikipedia (which might be the reason someone put the numerous fact tags). The reason I think neologisms generally get deleted is that we are trying to avoid a situation where Wikipedia becomes a place for people to make up words... if it has been cited in mainstream publications, I'd be happy to see the citations added to the article. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There seem to be more than one pretty solid citations in the article. I haven't followed them, but on their face they seem legit. LotLE×talk 05:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This is definitely not a candidate for PROD - it'd be a controversial deletion. AfD would be much better here - people should not use PROD on deletions that look anywhere near controversial.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)