Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. Rje 15:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Suicide methods
Delete, Per WP:NOT - wikipedia is not a cookbook for suicide methods. It can list them, but not explain details how to kill oneself, any more than list instructions how to make a bomb, kidnap a plane, commit terrorist attack or cook a cake. ShockedUser 07:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. You could propose the article Suicide for deletion for very similar reasons. Suicide is something that is fairly unkosher to talk about, but wikipedia is strictly not censored. MyNam e IsNotBob  07:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. There is a diference between an article about a bomb, and instructions how to make a bomb. In the same way, there is diference between article about suicide (which can mention diferent types of suicide, just like a bomb can mention diferent types of bomb), and article with instructions how to commit suicide. Do you, in the name of same principle, argue that article containing instructions to make a bomb, belongs to encyclopedia.? ShockedUser 08:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: the article has been around for about a year and a half, has been edited hundreds of times by a variety of editors and the result of the last nomination was a speedy keep. The methods are not so overly detailed so as to became a suicide manual instead of an encyclopedia article. A person researching suicide, depending on which aspects he or she is focusing on, may find the information to be useful. For example, the person may be writing about how to prevent suicides by specific methods, like netting or railings around bridges or restricted access to certain chemicals. -- Kjkolb 07:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a list of recepies, or medical procedures. Would you argue to list prescriptions in a short article? Encycclopedia articles are not cookbooks, travel guides nor instruction guides for different medical or criminal procedures, suicide included. ShockedUser 08:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep; certainly an encyclopedic article. ~ PseudoSudo 07:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then how do you respond to the concerncs listed above? Why a cooking recepie does not belong to encyclopedia, and a recepie how to kill oneself does? ShockedUser 08:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You refer to WP:NOT: Wikipedia should not include instruction manuals. wikibooks:Cookbook:Scrambled Eggs is an example of an instruction. Suicide methods is an example of a description.  The latter is encyclopedic. ~ PseudoSudo 09:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this a description:Horizontal position. This is usually done when conditions do not allow for other means. The person puts a noose around his neck and attaches the other end to something that sticks out (e.g., a doorknob or water tap) and then uses his own force to push away from it, or establishes himself in a position where gravity can help. Due to prolonged asphyxiation, blood may pool in the eyes before death. Note that a violent seizure might occur causing unexpected disturbance. Sound like instruction for hanging to me. They even go into such detail as to suggesting doorknub or water tab. Also, you may turn any instruction into description how people do it. You can sell anything as a description. For instance: People wanting to lunch in Venice, ususally go to one of the following nice restaurants, and dial the following numbers: xxxxxxxxxx ShockedUser 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Im sure there are people interested in the different ways of suicide, this page as far as I can see isn't trying to promote suicide, if anything its creating awareness. Woldo 08:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. There are people interested in travel guides. There are people interested in cook recepies. There are people interested in your dark secrets and your telephone number/adress. Yet such information you are not going to place here, and so interest is not a valid criterium. ShockedUser 08:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's an astonishingly pointless article, hamstrung no doubt by the violent passions on both sides of the debate (freedom of information vs protection of the vulnerable). However, there is no detailed information on here that compares different methods or suggests the "best" way to kill oneself, so it is emphatically not a "how-to" and is therefore not covered by the guidelines you have cited.  Moreover, the page does not seem to take a point of view on whether suicide is justifiable or not, and therefore is not in violation of the POV guidelines.  I do think that it has problems, not least in the lack of sources, lack of detailed information, and the fact that I don't need an encyclopedia to tell me such things (three minute's thought is surely all it'd take to come up with most of these methods, maybe excepting seppuku).  Nevertheless, it is encyclopedic, notable, and potentially useful to researchers. Keep. Vizjim 10:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. Description of how to make a shoe bomb might be also handy for researchers, for instance those interested in sociological aspects of shoe-bomb terrorism. Descriptions of how people cook different meals are also good when one researches technological aspects of cooking, as a sociological phenomenon. But yet wikipedia does not allow such wonderful descriptions of recepies to be posted in articles, impairing scientific research. ShockedUser 19:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, don't be rude. This is not a how-to, and upping your rhetoric won't make it so. Vizjim 10:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment It would seem [WP:NOT] would apply here. Navou   talk  11:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, legitimate. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per many above. Per PseudoSudo's arguments above, I don't agree that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information applies here. Colon el Tom 11:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Is encyclopedic content Ydam 12:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you will find list of ways to kill a cheating girlfriend even more thrillingly encyclopedic. ShockedUser 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contary, I fail to see how such an article would differ significantly enough from list of ways to kill a girlfriend to warrent its own article. Ydam 15:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not again. I'm getting annoyed. This topic is incredibly legitimate and notable, deleting it is simply ridiculous. I don't care about its content only it's referential value. Skinnyweed 13:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Arent cook recepies legitimate and notable? ShockedUser 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol_keep_vote.svg|20px]] Keep. The article is valuable, however in it's current state it does look more like how-to guide, that needs to be fixed. Maybe place the article as the community improvement drive for an extended period? Something like that. +Hexagon1 (talk) [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|30px]] 14:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOT a howto, but this article is not a howto. It is much better than the average list, and seems to offer a decent overview and comparison of trends over time and between nations. Just zis Guy you know? 15:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree it is encyclopedic context User:Bookworm51104
 * Keep There are many article subject that I may find distasteful, but that doesn't make them unencyclopedic. Also, the fact that the nominator created an account simply to AfD this article is a little curious. IrishGuy 17:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I find many cookrecepies very tasteful, I wonder why are they unencyclopedic. As for my account, it is certainly a ballot-stuffing indication. ShockedUser 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, and reference. I don't see how WP:NOT applies here, as many other said, there are no instructions in the article, and it doesn't belong to the indiscriminate collection categories, either. However, I feel an article like this needs specific references for each specific method mentioned. LjL 17:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, merely descriptions of steps which are usually done to kill one self, with special note to pros and cons of various methods from the point of view of the potential suicider, and physical analysis of laws of physics concerning the everlasting question: how can a gravity help.ShockedUser 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and add refrences, per above. This seems like a bad-faith nomination by a new user. -Whomp 23:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Vizjim. Encyclopedic both in nature and tone.   ergot 00:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not censored. TheMadBaron 10:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per many above. This is legitimate. This article appears to be AfD'd repeatedly by one or two people with an axe to grind, yet the consensus remains 'Keep'. Amists 15:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per many above. Encyclopedic, notable, and WP:NOT censored. - CNichols 17:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per JzG and LjL, although certainly editors of the page should keep in mind WP:V and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide (I concur in LjL's analysis w/r/to how the article ought to be improved). I certainly don't think users here ought to impute bad faith to the nomination; I am eminently hopeful that the nominator, even as he/she may ancillarily desire the deletion of the information because he/she finds it distasteful (although I surely don't think anything the subject matter to be at all distasteful), acts in good faith; he/she certainly adduces relevant policies (viz., that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, such that overly specific entries [e.g., a recipe for cheesecake in the article cheesecake] are looked upon with disfavor and as unencyclopedic).  We surely should wonder at the several nominations of this article (and the impetus for such nominations), as well as about the ostensibly neophytic nature of the nominator, but we must continue to assume good faith until we're compelled to do otherwise.  Joe 23:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid article for many reasons as already stated above.--Cwm 17:34, 18 May 2006 (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.