Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of self-harmers


 * 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 a wintry delete per clear consensus and BLP concerns.  Ƙ ɽ  ɨ  ɱ  ρ  ᶓ  ȶ  07:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

List of self-harmers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a list page. Some list are "interesting" or "encyclopedic" but I do not believe that this specific list is any good. Astrale01talkcontribs 19:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Astrale01talkcontribs 19:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete-Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. ChrisLamb 19:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Nice list if you are desperate for people to laugh at... but clearly not encylopedia content, too indiscriminate and far from provably sourceable. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it's appropriate to refer to self-harmers as people to laugh at! Nor should that opinion of self-harmers be a reason to delete the article. Mdwh 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It wasn't my reasoning... my reasoning was clearly stated after my pathetic outburst. I just don't like people to like me too much, but i would never comprimise following the rules. -- Jimmi Hugh 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: For one thing, not all of those names are sourced at all, and therefore are major WP:BLP violations. For another, I just peeked at several of those links, and after picking six out at random I failed to find a single one that wasn't either broken or weren't non-descript websites mirroring purported articles; before I accepted (say) a Rolling Stone article backing up that suchandsuch (living) singer was a cutter, I want that link to come from the Rolling Stone website.  Finally, what defines "self-harm?"  Could we (with some justification) include all suicides on the list?    RGTraynor  19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment See Self-injury. Explicity claims "without suicidal intent". Not that this is up for discussion. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Then remove the unsourced names - that is not a reason to delete an entire article. And broken links certainly isn't. Reference links getting broken is a problem for any Wikipedia article - the more useful response is to report the problem, then we can find an alternative source, or remove the entry - not delete the article! There are also plenty of articles which reference offline sources, not everything has to come from a live website. Did anyone even bother to tag it with "unreferenced" or "fact"? As for definitions, at the least, a person self-identifying as a self-harmer or cutter should count, and I have no problems with restricting the list to such people. Mdwh 22:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Since when did we take someone's unverified, self-referential word for anything? We wouldn't put those names on a List of Boston Bruins players (for example) either, no matter how often they proclaimed themselves to be pro hockey players; we'd get reliable, independent, third-party confirmation of that, and this is a subject where such confirmation is extremely difficult.  As far as the sourcing problems, this isn't a deal where there are just a few bad ones.  Over half the names listed have no sources at all for the assertion, and of those which do, only five out of twenty-three links are from reliable sources.  That's an outrageously poor track record.    RGTraynor  13:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete BLP minefield waiting to explode. Not everything is sourced, and even those that are many are not reliabble sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That some are unsourced isn't sufficient reason to delete the whole article, as long as there are some entries which do have reliable sources. Mdwh 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is just as useful and interesting as many other people lists we have (see Category:Lists of people by activity, Category:Lists of people). "Interesting" is subjective, and I fear editors are injecting personal POV if this is the basis. Mdwh 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on above - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isnt a valid reason to keep something non-encylopedic. Bigdaddy1981 23:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible delete Sourced or not, this can be a WP:BLP minefield (unless the retentionists are willing to look at this article three or four times a day to delete all unsourced statements on sight), and I'd point out that when it comes to things like this even sourcing might not be enough. Wikipedia is not for edgy, ultra-conventional college guys to find someone to laugh at either. -- Charlene 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, primarily due to BLP concerns as well as being an indiscriminate collection in violation of WP:NOT.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Astranom --not a bad topic, a bad list. There's nothing more boring than a list of names with no explanation as to why they're on there.  Yeah, it's reliable-- but so is the certainty that paint will dry.  Useful?  Maybe.  Interesting?  No.  It's not POV, but it's ZZZ.  I hate lists like this, where a bunch of blue links are placed, sometimes even in alphabetical order, and we're supposed to click on them and learn more.  My theory is that the list was designed to be cut Mandsford 23:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as with most such lists, they are interesting but 1) incomplete at best 2) terribly biased to the present 3) impossible to maintain 4) not appropriate for an encyclopedia Bigdaddy1981 23:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Charlene  and Bigdaddy1981.--JayJasper 05:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 06:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Arkyan. MartinDK 12:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per most of the above, and especially per RGTraynor; regardless of what "self-injury" sets as its ambiguous definition, others will argue anyone who has undergone an abortion, had one's ears pierced, or such trivial things as picking one's nose or a blister or a zit until it oozes or bleeds counts -- and there are those who still think masturbation is self-injury -- so about 90+% of people might find themselves in this category. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You should read self-injury. By wikipedia's own definition and by what i consider to be obvious the guidelines of what is considered self harming (e.g. cutting ones self to release emotional pain) will never be mixed up with unrelated acts like getting a piercing. The only problem with the article is verifiability though, as someone claiming to cut does not make it verifable. There must be other sources to verify that, that person cuts. The list is completely indiscriminate. -- Jimmi Hugh 13:10, 28 June 2007 (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.