Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (6th 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 was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW.  The consensus is that the deletion rationale is not based in policy and that prior consensus (clearly evidenced in earlier AfDs) has not changed. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Suicide methods
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I get the anti censorship and anti disclaimer arguments, but lives are at stake here. Some of you may not care about this, but depressed people can and do use Wikipedia to learn about methods on how to commit suicide, including a suicidal member in my immediate family. With what we have seen in the media about the copycat effect for people committing suicide, TIME magazine, we should either delete this article or put a disclaimer on this article alone per WP:IAR. This is not a typical censorship case and I urge Wikipedians to understand the practical effect of having this article without any sort of prominent help hotline at the top of this article. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - This is the 6th nomination now and no actual new argument for deletion is presented. Anti-censorship and anti-disclaimer aren't simply "arguments" but wikipedia policy.  You can't just use WP:IAR as a way to backdoor WP:JDLI. DSZ (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has content problems with respect to its scope--it is more like a general list of ways to die. It's also possible that any encyclopedic discussion of such methods can be merged to suicide. However, these are editing issues and not deletion issues. Nominator's rationale seems to be based entirely on emotion, which despite his claims to the contrary, makes this a very typical censorship case, and on that issue I see no reason to defy established guidelines. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per WP:NOTCENSORED, I see no policy argument to delete. Encyclopaedic information.   Chzz  ►  07:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Chzz. Possibly speedy keep as no colourable argument to delete has been presented. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Wikipedia is not censored. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP It is not a 'how-to' just an article listing the most common types of suicide, and is presented in a way that is neutral. To delete it simply because it covers a sensitive topic would simply be censorship. We must keep it as per WP:NOTCENSORED Trevor Marron (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. I do not accept that "lives are at stake here" - i.e. remove this article or people will die - a few moments playing with Google shows that information on suicide methods is widely available on the Internet. Anyone feeling suicidal will simply look elsewhere. In any case the article is not a manual. Jll (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2009 (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.