Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide bridge

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP if only due to the procedural snafus. Golbez 23:38, May 16, 2005 (UTC I think keep

Suicide bridge

 * del a local overpass entirely nonnnotable among other "sucicide bridges". Mikkalai 20:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No vote as of yet, but the concept of a suicide bridge may well be worth an article, even if it ain't this'n. We do have a new, similar article on Lover's Leaps.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep rewritten article -- Smerdis of Tlön 05:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, per Smerdis of Tlön's reasoning. Samaritan 21:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Local slang. There's plenty of ways to commit suicide (of family and friends, off the top of my head, two shot themselves, one took an intentional drug overdose, and the other hung himself), jumping off something tall is just one of many--don't really see a need for separate articles on each one. Suicide already mentions "jumping from height"--if someone wants to expand that (possibly breaking the section into its own single separate article (Suicide methodology, or whatever), since Suicide is 51k), that would be a better place for the concept. Niteowlneils 00:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually there already is a HUGE article Suicide methods. Mikkalai
 * Dunno how I missed the link, thanks. Suicide methods is only 17k, but doesn't have much detail about jumping from bridges. Good re-write, SimonP, but I still think that the content should be added to the Suicide methods article, with a redir to it. As for Hydnjo's suggestion, defining what is a 'suicide bridge' seems far too subjective to be practical--is George Washington Memorial Bridge a "suicide bridge"? How many suicides does it take to qualify? How many attempts? If someone survives an attempt, does that disqualify it? This is supposed to be a worldwide, timeless encyclopedia, not suicide_methods.com. Documenting methods seems reasonable--trying to document what methods are most successful`/desirable, not so much. Niteowlneils 07:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have rewritten the article. It is a well documented idea that certain bridges attract far more than their share of suicide attempts. - SimonP 02:11, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but must include a link to List of suicide bridges. hydnjo talk 03:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Spinboy 03:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Hydanjo's suggestion.  --L33tminion (talk) 06:55, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it is notable. --YUL89YYZ 12:47, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * The result of the debate was REWRITTEN; different topic; VfD no longer apply; kept
 * VfD invalidly closed by User:Mikkalai.
 * VfD is closed validly. Please refresh your knowledge of the policies. The content of the article now is on a completely different topic, and if you want to merge the new article, then be bold. Merging is not the topic to be discussed here. Mikkalai 15:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon, Mikkalai, but at Deletion policy it clearly states that the VfD remains open for 5 days. Period.  Regardless of where consensus seems to be heading.  Furthermore, the VfD template says "please do not blank, merge or move" the article while it's listed here.  At least one Maintenance page says that after the 5 days a non-admin can close the discussion if the consensus is clearly "Keep", but this is not mentioned on some other deletion policy pages.  This is somewhat complicated by the fact that some admins seem to view "Merge" votes as different from "Keep" votes.  Regardless, you did close the VfD invalidly.  Soundguy99 02:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, allow me to beg pardon. You seem to have a bad habit to read only what you like. If another solution has been found for some of these pages than deletion, leave them listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for a short while, so the original poster can see why it wasn't deleted, and what did happen to it. This will prevent reposting of the same item. After the original poster has seen the explanation, or in any case after about a day, the page can be delisted from VfD.
 * the article is not only different, it is for 100% different topic. It no longer belongs to VfD. I don't care about this silly article. I do care about wasted time of other people who have to look thru heaps of garbage. If something can be delisted, so be it. Mikkalai 07:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you may think so, but most of the votes were cast after Smerdis's rewrite, so apparently a number of people disagree. Also, I couldn't find the 'section 1.6' you mention anywhere on WP:VFD, WP:DP, or the admin guidelines. Radiant_* 08:50, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK then. About section 1.6: I forgot that I have section numbering turned on in my settings, so this number is not part of section title. Please search for the cited text in Deletion policy. Mikkalai 18:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Suicide, most of this article's content is trivial (e.g. "these suicides are more likely then others to be impulsive") and the selection of bridges is entirely arbitrary, and no sources are cited. Radiant_* 13:18, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merging with huge article is not advisable. Also, merging should be discussed at talk pages, not at VfD. Also, it goes to Suicide methods. Also, there are already separate articles about specific types of suicide, e.g., Suicide by cop. The triviality of content is not among criteris for deletion. We have much more trivia here. Mikkalai 15:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge is a valid VfD vote. Radiant_* 08:50, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is counted into "keep" and it is a suggestion, not obligatory. Things must be kept simple. This is vote for deletion. You cannot put all possible editing decisions into VfD. "cleanup" and "rewrite" are also valid votes. This vote is a request for deletion, and the only outcomes are to keep or delete. After it was decided to keep an article, the rest of its fate is to be decided at its talk page, not here. Everyone really has to periodically refresh the understanding of policies. Very often a customary usage tricks you into an illusion of understanding. And it is understandable: there are so many policies around. Mikkalai 18:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Some admins count it into 'keep', some others do not. I would like a more strict ruling either way, but I'm afraid that would be instruction creep. From WP:GVFD, "If the consensus is to merge the article and the merger would be a non-trivial one, many administrators, hard-pressed for time, will only begin the article merger process, by tagging the article." Btw I am unable to find "100%" or "article topic" on WP:DP, nor 'changed' except in context of redirects (of course, given that some policy pages are reworded daily doesn't really help :) ). Radiant_* 14:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable concept. Grue 17:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.