Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicide crisis lines


 * 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   keep.  Sandstein  08:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

List of suicide crisis lines

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Clearly runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR. Even if the contact information were removed, it still wouldn't make a good stand-alone list, as the vast majority of the entries aren't individually notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Psychonaut (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep despite the blatant WP:NOTDIR violation. I couldn't find a Google search term that would put this list on the first page and the information is available in plenty of other places but there's still the possibility that somebody will find it and it will save their life. I don't think that making an exception here would open the floodgates to a mass of other directories. Dricherby (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Writing or providing material in hopes of preventing suicide is not within the scope of our project, which is to create an encyclopedia. This runs afoul of WP:PROMOTION, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NPOV, and other policies.  This issue was already discussed on (among other places) Talk:Suicide and Talk:Suicide methods. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it runs afoul of any of those policies.
 * WP:PROMOTION: clearly not an "opinion piece", "scandal-mongering" or "self-promotion". I don't see any "advocacy, propaganda or recruitment" because it's just a list of organizations, or "advertising" because the content is entirely objective and does not offer any opinions, and all the organizations listed are individually notable.
 * WP:CRYSTALBALL: not relevant because the article makes no predictions about the future.
 * WP:NPOV: I don't see how this is relevant, because the article does not express any point of view — it's just a list of organizations. Of course, those organizations have a particular point of view but that will be true of any coherent list of organizations.
 * Indeed, I would be more sympathetic to the argument that deleting this article would violate WP:NPOV as it would leave the encyclopaedia with a lengthy article on ways to commit suicide (suicide methods) and nothing on ways to not commit suicide. (Suicide prevention is an article about how to stop other people committing suicide.) Dricherby (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory and providing a telephone book service is not within the scope of our mission. I appreciate the sentiment made above for an IAR Keep and quickly ran a Google search for SUICIDE+HELP+LINE, which returned plenty of good telephone numbers for someone in need. The odds of them seeking this information by typing "List of suicide crisis lines" in a Wikipedia search seem very, very small. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept that people are unlikely to find List of suicide crisis lines from direct Googling. However, Suicide and Suicide methods are the top two hits on a Google search for "suicide" and I do think there's a case for keeping this list so it can be linked from the top of those two pages. Dricherby (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This article, whether or not it is deleted, is certainly not going to be linked from the top of Suicide and Suicide methods; as I already mentioned that proposal has been repeatedly raised and defeated on Talk:Suicide. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Psychonaut and Carrite's comments. --- TheFortyFive  17:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename this page is currently being disccussed at Talk:Suicide_methods as a place to direct people from Suicide_methods. I suggest that it it is used for this purpose it needs to be moved to WP:List of suicide crisis lines. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep there is a 'list' of every conceivable exercise in asinine stupidity under the sun on Wikipedia; a list of people who had gerbils stuck up their ass in 1929, a list of  people who shit their pants in 1982 etc. etc. ad nauseum. This is a list, it just happens to be one that may actually be useful and help save somebody's life. God for fucking bid. (lengthy and irrelevant personal attacks against multiple people removed. Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)) 7mike5000 (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; listing telephone numbers for non-notable entities, no matter how well-intentioned, is textbook WP:NOTDIR. This is not a task we should take upon ourselves, as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is a poor venue for listing any kind of emergency services with the expectation that people rely upon it and use it. I really don't think this is Wikipedia's place at all, but at most Stuartyeates' suggestion should be followed. Note also that we already have Responding to threats of harm, to which WP:SUICIDE redirects. A directory of this sort is simply not an encyclopedia article. postdlf (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, its current state is still unacceptable, but you've convinced me that its problems are probably fixable. postdlf (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, they mostly are notable. I've Wikilinked the ones that have articles; I've not looked for notability in the others yet. Dricherby (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of these links are duplicates, as various regional branches of the same organization are listed. Perhaps the list could be kept if the common list selection criteria were applied (i.e., entries only for those organizations with a dedicated Wikipedia article) and the directory-ish contact information and decorative flags removed. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question, how do you countenance the fact that there is a List of Ultima characters which is a nice pretty page and all but is a list of fictional characters that do not exist in reality, but that is deemed notable. A list of suicide crisis lines list organizations that exist in reality, and are staffed by real people as opposed to ficticious characters. As far as notability I am sure each one of those listings has been mentioned in various publications. As to whether or not I know the meaning of notability, yeah I do. Not to toot my own horn, but I can use my own definition of Silent stroke, in my words, in an article and use the medical journals that plagiarized it from Wikipedia as references. Unless you can say the same please don't preach to me about 'notability'. To satisfy the OMG a WP:NOTDIR violation, the telephone numbers can be deleted. As far as the flags that's a trivial issue but what policy does that violate? Is there a No little flags policy?


 * I'm sure for each one of those entries a reference can be found in a 'notable publication'. Don't selectively enforce policy according to your own whims. If a list of real world organizations is not 'notable', then all these lists on Wikipedia of the characters in kiddie games most certainly are not.7mike5000 (talk)


 * Keep on the basis of the added links that show notability Just as good as any other list of notable things. No need to invoke IAR for saying its useful--just the basic criteria for making a list of things notable enough to have Wikipedia articles.  DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  05:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Although I will say there is a strong case for WP:NOTDIR violation, maybe we could work towards merging it with this (or redirecting from there). I figure (as others have said), if things like a list of random Dragon Ball Z characters or a list of all the Digimon characters exist and pass muster--I would certainly keep this, albeit with a bit of work. Each of those individual institutions would easily pass notability checks and good reason exists to have a compiled list, though I would recommend it be semi-protected(at least) off the bat due to the serious consequences of misinformation. DietFoodstamp (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The facts are this: P.S. The Samaritans also operate local crisis line in the United States, I didn't know that and it could be an alternative to 800-273-TALK. Somebody COULD ADD THAT information.7mike5000 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Mike told me about this. It's a list of mostly notable agencies, of a class - suicide crisis lines. Of course there should be such a list. If you've got a problem with the phone numbers, have that discussion on the article's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:IAR if necessary, and improve as needed. Matchups 19:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a list of notable items - no need to invoke WP:IAR. The suicide line with which I'm most familar, the Samaritans, is beyond notable, being known by pretty well the whole population of Britain, and it has been demonstrated that other such lines are also notable. Whether to include the telephone numbers is an editing decision that can be decided by discussion on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - it certainly appears that most of the entries are notable entities. That makes this a useful navigational aid, aside from the possible help it might give someone needing one of those places. Lady  of  Shalott  01:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - all the entries are notable and sourceable; the list is sensible and not random; our core readership (students) are both most likely to need this list and most likely to attempt suicide; we should IAR once in a while; specific editing issues are not for AfD. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a list of everything on Wikipedia, many of them are lists of things that exist in the land of make-belive such as a List of Ultima characters, and a List of The Demonata characters which provides such useful information as; "Grubitsch 'Grubbs' Grady was a typical 14 year old teenager until his parents and sister were killed by a demon master, Lord Loss." There are also many articles that are ludicrous to say the least such as Fart lighting. As much as I enjoy lighting my farts fire, I don't think there should be an article on it., and 'articles' like that don't do much for Wikipedia's credibility.
 * These are real world organizations of varying reknown, I am an American yet I am familiar with the Samaritans organization.
 * The purpose of an encyclopedia is to learn, and that can be done even from a 'list', e.g., I did not know that there were crisis lines that cater to specific demographic groups with unique issues such as LBGT youth, Native American youth and Aboriginal Canadian youth. Now I do, I learned that from a Wikipedia article.
 * For an organization that is based on advocacy - providing free knowledge - articles of this nature, even in short list formats with those damned little flags, fits the bill perfectly. It advocates for people - often young ones - in crisis who may die by pointing them to someone who will listen and may be able to offer some measure of relief. It does this merely by providing information. Knowledge is useless if your dead.
 * While there is know way to verify it, the Wikipedia article on Suicide may be among the last if not the least article a suicidal person reads before they kill themselves. The Suicide article had 123,983 visits in the last 30 days. It's not far fetched to state that a certain number of those visitors are dead, but maybe a few were given pause for thought, that they haven't exhausted all their options yet by information listed their such as their are treatments that actually do work and there is someone to talk to.
 * While there may be no 'hard evidence' that crisis lines work, there is empirical data which shows that interaction with another human being, even a stranger via telephone, causes actual changes in a persons neurochemistry, even if just short-term. The human brain doesn't mature until about the age of 24-25, and in some people such as myself it never does. Emotional immaturity can lead to a rash decision culminating in suicide. Talking to somebody can help them get over what, may in the future when they are older, be something that is tolerable. Um, I'm done. Oh, wait how about 'fixing it' or improving it, instead of bitching about it. That's how you 'Help Wikipedia' and thereby society, not by feeling self-important by slapping tags on things. 7mike5000 (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keeping the article and fixing it will require removing the phone numbers, which would appear to make it useless for your purposes. If you are trying to prevent suicides, I suggest that moving it to Wikipedia: space will allow the phone numbers to be kept. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article's kept, I don't see why we can't WP:IAR and keep the 'phone numbers, too. Dricherby (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because IAR only applies when there's not another way to do something and when the something we're doing is clearly supported by the other pillars, and here there are clear alternative that follows the rules and I don't see any attempt to use the pillars supporting this. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, no offense at all Stuartyeates, to each his own, but could you possibly explain to me how the winner of 'Mr. Gay World' Andreas Derleth, an article that you started, is somehow considered 'NOTABLE', whereas this one is NOT? Quite frankly, and again no offense I would say most people on the planet couldn't care less about who started Mr. Gay World.
 * You've been here long enough to know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in a deletion debate. If you have a problem with the notability of some other article, then go and improve its references, add a notability tag to it, or nominate it for deletion.  This page is for discussing the nominated article. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  02:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  02:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Notice of this discussion has been placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death. Lady  of  Shalott  02:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not attempting to support this by the pillars: I'm attempting to support it by basic humanity. Are you honestly saying that adhering to Wikipedia's rules is a higher priority in your life than to giving somebody a chance to save their life? It is perfectly acceptable for a Wikipedia article about a company or organization to link to the subject's website — there's even a space for it in the infobox. Is the phone number really so different from a policy point of view? And is including it in the list really so different from the policy point of view? It's a small stretch of the rules, with negligible physical cost (what, a few tens of bytes per replica?) that doesn't seem to set a precedent for anything else and that has large potential benefits. Dricherby (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not in the job of pushing your morals on other people. Suicide is an emotive subject in the Western world, but suicide is not always bad. Lawrence Oates, for example, is primarily notable for his celebrated suicide. Would you pursuade other people in similar sitautions that they should not lay down their lives that their friends might live? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oates is an exceptional case and at no point have I argued that suicide is always bad. Furthermore, listing crisis line phone numbers does not compel anyone to call them and calling them does not compel anyone to not commit suicide. Anybody who decides not to commit suicide after calling one of those numbers is free to change their mind again at any time. Not listing phone numbers may deprive people of the opportunity to seek guidance (remember: Wikipedia is the top two Google hits for "suicide") and people so deprived don't get to change their mind later: they're gone and their friends and family suffer. Finally, if arguing one opinion is "pushing one's morals" then arguing the contrary opinion must be the same thing. Dricherby (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I like your morals, Dricherby. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Listing suicide crisis lines is providing information for people. List of suicide methods does not tell someone to put one of those methods to use. Neither does a list of suicide crisis lines tell that person to call that line. In both cases though, having the article means someone seeking the information can find it. Lady  of  Shalott  02:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it possible to compare the unique situation and actions of Lawrence Oates, an explorer from the nineteenth century who was stranded in a tent in the Arctic, and who committed an act of self-sacrifice with some some college kid who possibly has an undiagnosed condition causing suicidal ideation who is contemplating hanging themselves in their dorm room? That is incomprehensible to me.7mike5000 (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted the telephone numbers, so a List of suicide crisis lines is not a DIRECTORY. (God forbid). There is no rational basis, to delete this now. The article, a List of Ultima characters uses 'references' that are explanations of the Wikipedia editor, which is tantamount to me making a contribution to a medical article and using as a reference; ref> "Trust me, I know this" </ref. Which is of course a violation of WP:REFERENCES As to the winner of Mr. Gay World, Andreas Derleth, winning an obscure contest does not constitute 'NOTABILITY', ...AND using a Twitter feed as a reference is of course also a violation of WP:REFERENCES. If an individual has difficulty following basic Wikipedia policy how can they possibly be in a position to be nominating articles for deletion? 13:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Luxton DD, June JD, Fairall JM. Social media and suicide: a public health perspective: "There is increasing evidence that the Internet (you mean like Wikipedia?) and social media can influence suicide-related behavior" Am J Public Health. 2012 May;102 Suppl 2:S195-200. Epub 2012 Mar   7mike5000 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - most or all of the entities on this list are notable. Keeping the list does no harm, and might even do some good. Maratrean (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove non-notable entries and ensure that the phone numbers aren't added back, as per recent edits. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2012 (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.