Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicides that have been attributed to academic pressures


 * 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 delete. Yunshui 雲 水 16:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

List of suicides that have been attributed to academic pressures

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an indiscriminate list of events of tenuous notability. None of the people listed here seem to be notable, and the disproportionate geographical coverage is problematic in terms of article balance. Slashme (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - sources are dubious, slanted towards Singapore and makes no credible assertion as to why "academic pressure" suicides warrant a separate article from List of suicides.  Dr Strauss   talk  14:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * delete complete WP:UNDUE towards Singapore. It's even more pointless listing non notable cases unless you're going to include reported cases from all around the world not just Asia. Also potential WP:OR unless a coroner has ruled clearly academic pressure. LibStar (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indiscriminate list relating to non-notable peoples. Sources are questionable and almost possibly violates WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, violates WP:NPOV/WP:NOR as per above, and no entries are notable. ansh 666 19:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, Unless a coroner in any of the cases mentioned on this list attributed those deaths to “academic pressures” and this can be evidenced then the assertion that the deaths had been in anyway attributed to this factor is mere hearsay. I do not believe Wikipedia is a place for hearsay or improperly referenced content or indeed lists of improperly referenced content. Furthermore, “academic pressures” is not an official cause of death, suicide is and that has many contributing factors which doctors carefully decide on for a very good reason. In the absence of any evidence based on doctors themselves stating this as a major contributing factor for large quantities of suicides it would be improper for us Wikipedia editors to state it for them. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 18:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Possible ethical/legal issue Also, do we have consent from the appropriate person(s) to display the names of those they have post-death guardianship over on Wikipedia for their apparent suicide related death? → (talk to me!) (contributions) 18:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * delete. Per WP:LISTN, list articles need sources per WP:Golden Rule that the subject is notable;  there are probably are sufficient sources (e.g. NYT and others), but they are not deployed here.  Also, as others have noted above, this is an extremely delicate topic (especially with regard to the risk  - which is very real - of contagion through publicity (see Suicide) and there is a huge risk of WP:BLP issues with respect to recently deceased people, as well as abuse of sources -- all of which is described above already.  It might be possible to create a decent article but this is not it, and it needs WP:TNT. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to be original research, no evidence that this grouping meets WP:LISTN. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - List is original research, made up (almost?) entirely of non-notable individuals/events, etc. Also, I think that the sensitivity of this issue and the inclusion of addresses (often home addresses) and direct quotes from primary source newspapers about of details seems unethical. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment ( Weak Delete, but taking issue with some of the reasons for deletion above, and with a suggestion) - A basic search for sources (and glance at those included) shows that there many instances that can be verified (including from e.g. coroners). Verification is not enough, but it instantly eliminates all of the claims that this is original research. Likewise, suicide due to academic pressures is absolutely a notable subject. In the US/UK it may not stand out among other causes of suicide, but in places like South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong, it's at worst an epidemic or at best a moral panic (worst/best admittedly unnecessarily loaded terms here). Either way, it's the subject of popular and scholarly articles alike. I'm not surprised that the user(s) who started the list focused on Singapore, as that's one of the places that struggles with the problem -- and being incomplete is not a reason for deletion, so I don't know why that's even coming up here. All this said, obviously I haven't jumped in with a keep !vote (and not just because the current is pushing too hard the other way). While there are a ton of sources on the subject, I'm not seeing sufficient published lists of examples to justify keeping per WP:LISTN. The sources and the best-covered examples, however, would be useful seed material in an article along the lines of academic pressures and suicide (perhaps focusing on a particular country/region). I'd encourage to explore such a project. I started to create a stub just now myself, but didn't feel like I have the time to write something that would do justice to the serious subject. If Jfanderson68 (who created this list) is interested, however, and wants help, I hope he/she will leave a message on my talk page. If this is deleted, Jfanderson68, know that an admin can always resurrect the content should the e.g. sources be useful down the road. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 15:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Compiling a list of instances from primary sources that have not previously been listed together in reliable secondary sources is original research in my book. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand the points you have raised and am especially grateful for you sourcing references to support the notion that academic pressures are a contributing factor towards suicide. However, with this said, I think it is important we do not lose sight over the actual topic which is suicide. This is a medical topic which I would say requires strong academic sources to support any notion made thereof in relation to it. I am not a doctor in medicine, and therefore cannot make any quality contribution with expertise in that regard. However, what I can comment on with fair certainty is that there is a moral / ethical issue with listing the names of otherwise non-noteworthy people in a list which documents their suicide on what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. To this degree, it could be argued that the need to protect these person’s privacy is greater than the academic quality materialized from documenting their deaths. Furthermore, I agree with you that there is sufficient notability for an article about death related to academic pressures. With this said I think it would be equally important not to name non-notable private individuals, especially taking into consideration the age for some of the victims. In some countries, for example the United Kingdom, news sources and other publicly facing documenters are restrained from publishing such personal details about minor’s deaths in these circumstances. Conclusively, publishing the full names of these victims is not necessary or even prudent to gain sufficient coverage of the issue thus this list is redundant. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 21:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "...there is a moral / ethical issue with listing the names of otherwise non-noteworthy people..." - This is a good point that I wasn't really thinking too much about. Not that it really matters, but I changed weak delete &rarr; delete. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Alot of unknowns, and not to mention an obvious WP:OR violation. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 15:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. While this list is not the best way to present the topic, neither of the reasons given by the nominator stand up to scrutiny. The list is not indiscriminate, but clearly defined as suicides attributed to academic pressure, and the topic is clearly notable in Asia (as the sourcing provided in the article demonstrates). The geographical coverage is not problematic, since the issue itself is notable in a particular geographical area. Several arguments have been made that this is original research, but these have already been shown not to stand up. WP:LISTN specifies that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable", which means the bar to pass is whether reliable sources discuss suicides attributed to academic pressure as a set. This they do, as witness M. T.Y. Lee, B. P. Wong, B. W.-Y. Chow, C. McBride-Chang, Predictors of Suicide Ideation and Depression in Hong Kong Adolescents: Perceptions of Academic and Family Climates, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 36 (2006): 82-96; Victor R. Wilborn, Delores E. Smith, Stress, self-esteem, and suicidal ideation in late adolescents, Adolescence, 40/157 (2005), 33-45; Steve Bossy, "Academic pressure and impact on Japanese students", McGill Journal of Education 35/1 (2000): 71-89; Kangmin Zeng, Gerald K. Le Tendre, "Adolescent Suicide and Academic Competition in East Asia", Comparative Education Review 42 (1998): 513-528; Sumit Bhattacharjee, Academic pressure pushes teens to suicide, say doctors, The Hindu, March 28, 2016; Prathibha Joy, Is academic pressure driving kids to suicide?, Times of India, Aug. 7, 2016; Elizabeth Cheung, Peace Chiu, Students at breaking point: Hong Kong announces emergency measures after 22 suicides since the start of the academic year, South China Morning Post, March 12, 2016; etc. Accordingly, I am inclined to think that regarding the topic as non-notable is in fact an example of WP:BIAS. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that there is any argument against there being academic sources to provide support for the statement that “academic pressures can contribute towards suicide.” However, that is not the issue here, the issue here is do we need to provide a list of otherwise non-notable people by their full names to provide any knowledge to the reader about the subject – the answer is no. For you to flippantly claim bias without any reasoning is theatrical rather than prudent information to the debate.This is a list of people by full name who are believed to have committed suicide based on a contributing factor being academic pressures, it is not an article. While the notability and sources do prove, this notability might exist for an article there is no benefit of showing individual names of otherwise non-noteworthy people and in fact it could be perceived as an intrusion of privacy. Wikipedia is not generally known to be a death registry and this list is in of itself exactly that. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 15:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You might also want to look at WP:LISTBIO which makes clear guidance that lists of names should only contain a list of people who are proven to be notable. Death by suicide does not alone make you notable nor does death by suicide due to academic pressures. The subject might be notable but indiscriminately listing every person involved in the subject is ridiculous. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 15:21, 28 February 2017 (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.