Wikipedia talk:Responding to suicidal individuals/Archives/2007/May

Something like this is needed
We absolutely need a policy on what to do when observing someone on Wikipedia who may be a danger to themselves or to others. This is a good step.

I personally have already been involved in one such situation here. In that case, I made a phone call to Danny and that got the ball rolling for getting the person some help.

I have a problem with this sentence which is in the current version "...never revert under the assumption that it is trolling unless there is very good evidence that that is the case (i.e. editor is a repeat offender)." I don't think that we can ever assume such a user is just trolling. Suicidal people may test the waters many times by talking about suicide and even making half-hearted attempts. These are actually calls for help, but a naive reader might easily brush off their initial statements as jokes or trolling. I think our instruction should be to treat each and every incident seriously. Trained professionals are the only ones who should be able to declare that a user is not serious. Johntex\talk 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Though, of course, making this explicit policy would be manna from heaven for trolls. I don't wish to sound like a heartless bastard here, but if Wikipedia is not therapy why are we considering policy from a therapuetic POV? Some things are better left interpreted on a case by case basis. Rockpock  e  t  00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is hard to know what might happen, but I don't think it will be that big of a problem. Obviously there is a limit to how much we would be able to put up with, but surely we can put up with a lot if it helps turn even a few lives around, can't we?  I saw we should risk the trolls. I honestly don't think it will be that big of a problem.  If I am wrong and it becomes absolutely unbearable we can make changes later if we have to. Johntex\talk 00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, I don't really know myself. I guess my point was more one that that a lot of disruptive editors may have social problems or mental problems that manifests in vandalism here. I have seen editors that (in my amateur opinion) use Wikipedia for purposes of human connection, either desperately seeking attention or approval. I have seen editors who appear highly distraught when disaproval is expressed of them. In some of the more extreme cases, a indef block or a reversion could also have serious consequences in their lives. Should we have exceptional policy for those also?
 * Don't get me wrong, I'm all for treating those who mention suicide with due sensitivity and care, but our policies already tell us we should be treating all editors with due sensitivity and care. So we should take every case seriously by simply following our established policies in a friendly but detached way (i.e. politely tell them this is not an appropriate forum for such comments and direct them towards a more appropriate place. Then leave it up to judgement on whether to revert or not or when it becomes trolling). To summerize, i'm all for a guideline/policy on what an editor should do in such a situation, but the guideline should instruct them to follow our established policies, it should not create a new extraordinary policy for therateutic purposes (especially one that would essentially give free reign to trolls). Rockpock  e  t  00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Resources inside and outside Wikipedia
On several occasions I have notified FBI, Secret Service, FTC, local police, fire dept, others, when I witnessed what I interpreted as a potential risk relevant to wherever authority. Witnesses need to know appropriate authority to notify, given various types of circumstances, and how to contact them ... there was an incident years ago that I thought should be told to the US Marshall Service, but I could not find them in the Yellow Pages, and by the time I found contact info, the incident involving risk to others had ended and the evildoers left the scene. There was another incident where someone's e-mail id was the name of a person on the FBI 10 most wanted criminal list, with letters of name rearranged, asking the kind of question you would expect if it was really that person planning the kind of crime that maed the minfamous. I thought it was either a joke in very bad taste, or should be reported to someone, but who? User:AlMac|(talk) 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reason for Policy?
Whilst it is a problem that all businesses, professions could experience at some point, I doubt that many places have such a policy.

I disagree with such a policy being on Wikipedia, no matter how good intentions it has on a potentially tragic issue. Where I work I have never seen a suicide policy and on Monday Im certainly going to have a search for one but I doubt there is any. Half the people on here would not read it, some are anonymous users who wont read that deep into wikipedia and to be honest if you just apply some common sense you'd be fine.

Are Wikipedians suddenly scared they are going to be liable for someones suicide if they dont do something about it? To be honest how can they... if they are successful in their suicide theyll be dead. Only their family could sue and provided you dont say go for it they have no leg to stand on in court!

I feel the simplest way is to give them websites or telephone helplines - there are plenty for the person to contact. That way you could not be held liable in my opinion as its their actions, why are you just because you volunteer to work on this helpdesk suddenly got to be their counsellor? If anything happened you would deny knowledge of being on the site or away from your pc if anything.

I dont see any major websites with such a similar policy, in fact in all the years Ive been on the net this is the first time Ive heard of such a proposal hence my response here. By the way if any of you guys can point me to one Ill take that comment back!

I think your final problem is if this became common knowledge the amount of people who would play on it could be incredible. A lot of kids come on this site, and theyre going to want to have a laugh on something like this, make phony suicide cries etc and waste peoples time trying to deal with them.

Just leave it as it is, no policy required. --PrincessBrat 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Princess Brat. In response:
 * the fact (if it is a fact) that other organisations have no such policy is no reason in itself for us not to have one. Once upon a time, no company with employees had Occupational Health and Safety Rules, but they all do now, and someone had to be the first.
 * the fact that many WP users do not read WP policies is no reason not to have them. Some previous responses to suicide messages that I've seen have been fine, but others have been appalling.  Fist fights broke out in the quesioner's presence about how we should best respond.  It was disastrous.  We need a guideline so that everyone is playing on the same team, with the questioner remaining uppermost in our minds, not each other.
 * a certain percentage of suicide messages are indeed phoney. But are you prepared to be the one to say "That one's phoney, but this one's genuine"?  We have to act as if they're all genuine, even if we know many of them are not.
 * I don't recall seeing anyone actually say "go for it" here, but there was certainly a case last year where a person said they were thinking of killing themselves and they asked for suggestions as to how to go about it. Various very helpful answers were provided, including links to other websites with detailed instructions.  If that's not effectively saying "go for it", what is?  Under the proposed policy, such answers could be immediately reverted.   JackofOz 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, no other website has quite needed this amount of thought because no other website has ever been quite like Wikipedia. While it is important to use common sense, there are important issues (such as a person with suicidal ideations) that need a uniform policy to make sure everyone who is aware of it can be on the same page. V-Man - T/C 00:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this and this demonstrate a need for this policy. Caknuck 03:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it both hilariously humorous as well as insultingly disturbing that the Yahoo search pulls up an eBay link offering the tempting "Looking for suicide? Find exactly what you want today!" V-Man - T/C 03:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Yahoo's first non-advertisement search result is to here. I doubt selling suicide is permitted on eBay ;) Caknuck 04:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, this site is really messed up. I find it very frightening that something like this is so high in the search results (or exists at all for that matter.) S.dedalus 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just searched both Google and Yahoo! now and Wikipedia is still the first non-advertisement result for "suicide." For this reason, I'm marking this page as "in need of expert attention"; if there are any experts watching this discussion we'd like to hear from them!  69.140.164.142 21:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say I instinctively like the idea of this guideline, though can appreciate the concerns. If the guideline offered a solid basis for not engaging in comments about self-harm, could it not then actually help deny trolls attention or manipulative ability on this issue though? In terms of the genuine possibility, I wonder if the guideline advised pointing a person concerned to this guideline it might help - so you could say something like unfortunately I can't help on this and this is why (i.e. so it's clearly not personal or a rejection) and perhaps you'll find helpful resources there, and if you'd like help contributing to Wikipedia or dealing with editors/conflicts please just...etc EverSince 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While I'm not sure about an editor pointing a person making threats to the policy would help much. ("I can't counsel you, and here's why..."), I think that links to the policy would be added to "Suicide crisis" section of Suicide, as well as on the talk pages to all (or most) of the articles related to suicide (in the form of a template at the top of the page). Caknuck 04:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say it's usually helpful to provide information to help a person understand where you're coming from EverSince 05:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This policy will not stop trolls. Nothing can do that, and it's not designed to even try.  Its purpose is to guide Wikipedia users about how to respond if they see a suicide message on a talk page/Ref desk, whether or not they think it's from a troll. JackofOz 15:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech
Recent articles have indicated that there's a lot of people with mental health problems, inadequate resources to help them, and people who witness troubled individuals but don't know how to resolve the problem effectively. I saw in the news (sorry I not have a citation) that several Virginia Tech instructors observed that a particular student was a risk to himself and others, formed a committee to try to resolve the problem, had failed to get it resolved when the troubled boy killed 30+ other people on campus.

We all have a civic responsibility, when we witness someone who is a threat to themselves or tothers, to try to help that individual, or help protect society. We do not always know how to do that. User:AlMac|(talk) 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should these be two seperate proposals? They'd be more likely to be accepted as a guideline if merged...
I think this is unlikely to gain consensus anyway, but still...--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there is a complete lack of consensus as to which attitude should be taken regarding suicidal individuals, and the opinions have divided into two main camps: Do not engage suicidal individuals and Helping suicidal individuals. As for accuracy and propriety, I'll be interested when a bridge is built over this chasm. *shrug* V-Man - T/C 23:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I think the two proposals should be merged. For instance perhaps we could recommend that users at least provide links to mental health services as per Do not engage suicidal individuals (which does not recommend a policy of no engagement by the way.) However, we could then also create a fully sourced Wikipedia article called perhaps Methods for responding to a suicide crises. (It would probably contain much of what is now in the Helping suicidal individuals proposal. ) Then somewhere in the main “Responding to suicidal individuals” guideline we could mention that users can also respond using the Methods for responding to a suicide crises page for information if they feel they need to. This way we would have a basic policy that any individual can follow, but we would also have an extended method left open to users. Wikipedia would officially recognize the basic response, however the door would be left open for users to engage more closely with the suicidal person on their own initiative. What do you think? S.dedalus 06:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you mean give users a choice between just listing hotlines or taking a more involved approach, the Helping suicidal individuals proposal already does that. A few things to consider: listing hotlines might send the message that you don't care to the suicidal person.  ("I don't care what you do, just please don't bother me.  You can bother these people instead.")  On the other hand, many people may not feel capable of taking a more involved approach, and recommending hotlines may be the best alternative for them.  But if one does feel capable, I would not recommend listing hotlines until one feels one can't handle any more.  (And, perhaps at that point, it will sound like, "I honestly believe these people can help you better than I can."  Or maybe it will only sound like, "I'm sick of your suicidal threats, go bother these other people if you want to, but leave me alone."  But the odds go up.)  Certainly, recommending a suicide hotline is more caring that deleting the person's message as "trolling" or not responding at all.  But it's not an optimal response.
 * Some comments on the on creating an article: I am guilty of judging sources based on my own experience with suicidal people rather than Reliable Sources, plain original research, and using a source that gives detailed information on how to kill oneself (which we really don't want suicidal people to see, even if Wikipedia is not censored) in addition to a lot of insight into the suicidal mind. In the Wikipedia: namespace, I think selectively representing sources that show an understanding viewpoint, original research, and not citing a source because it says things I wouldn't want some people to see is okay: but it would not be good for the article namespace.
 * Thanks for asking my opinion,
 * Armed Blowfish (mail) 12:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the difference in my proposal is that the official guideline that Wikipedia would advocate would be one that directs people towards expert help (a hotline). Wikipedia would just not expressly forbid or encourage people to use their own initiative in befriending the person. We would simply point the intervening editor to a Wikipedia article that could help them with the principles of suicide prevention. This would neatly solve the legal issues, and would protect Wikipedia from any possible media fallout that would ensue from a suicide linked to help provided on Wikipedia—
 * Okay, here’s how I see it. We need a guideline, and we need it fast because people are posting suicidal messages on Wikipedia all the time. (See above.) I think we need a basic policy that may not be perfect but that can be followed by all editors. I see that the Helping suicidal individuals already is there for this purpose. It’s better that nothing. However, some editors, like yourself, obviously have a lot more experience and knowledge in this aria and are better qualified to help. In this case you can simply use Ignore all rules and no one will question your right to engage in a more in-depth response to a suicidal person. I simply feel that Wikipedia should not be providing all this information on helping a suicidal person inside a Wikipedia namespace. Better to creat an article. Also I don’t necessarily think that redirecting a person to other sources of help will make them feel rejected. I tried to convey this with my response to a suicidal user here. What do you think of this response? S.dedalus 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with merging the pages. On the extent to which editors should get personally involved, it seems that we should shortly be able to find a compromise. Some editors will not want to get involved at all. Perhaps they doubt their own skills, or they are feeling vulnerable themselves, or they have had experiences in the past that make them very wary, or just they are very short of time. There are all these valid reasons and more. On the other hand some editors will feel that they can extend a hand of friendship; perhaps they have professional skills they can bring to bear. It is hard to make a list of "do's", but there are some "don'ts" that can definitely be included in a merged page. Itsmejudith 11:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I get what S.dedalus is saying. Could we have a "you are permitted to do this instead of providing hotline numbers" explicitly written into your version?  And perhaps the page providing guidance on befriending suicidal individuals could be a Wikipedia-space essay, rather than an article?  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I started this merge, but since my bias is rather obvious, I'm sure it still needs more explanation as to why giving a person a phone number is a good thing, besides being easy. —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would support both your suggestions. One reason I suggested that the page providing guidance on befriending suicidal individuals be in an article rather than a namespace, is that it seems much of the information could be usefully and more accessible if incorporated into the Suicide intervention page for instance. However, an essay could be just as effective (although not as accessible to the general public). I think that we primarily have to be careful about appearing to be giving medical help here. We just have to make sure that it is clear that any assistance provided to a suicidal editor beyond the basic “call this number” is done so on the assisting editors own initiative. Separating the how too information into an essay sounds like a workable compromise to me. S.dedalus 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it was your idea, so have fun and fix the merge up. : )  I tried to start it, but since my own opinion is that the basic "call this number" is far from an optimal solution, I doubt I did a very good job.  As for the guidance on befriending such individuals that I wrote, I am afraid that it doesn't meet encyclopaedic standards.
 * Perhaps it could be worded such that the "call this number" method is a minimum level of help, but does not exclude a more involved approach?
 * — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I’ve made some big changes now (for the better I hope). At the moment I’m thinking that Helping suicidal individuals will become the proposed essay? Also, I’ll see what I can do with the “call this number” section. S.dedalus 22:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Dealing with improper responses from other editors to a suicide message" section seems rather harsh to me. Perhaps you could try stealing from Helping suicidal individuals? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How is it now? I got confused and did that edit in two saves. You may have seen the original one? It now advocates a warning only in those cases where an editor really should have known better (humorous or derisive reply, not revert). S.dedalus 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know. "You're just seeking attention," and "You're just threatening to do this to hurt other people," are common responses.  An explanation that this is often not the case, and it is still a serious issue even when it is (some people who don't mean to kill themselves do), might be more helpful than some npa warning template.  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see your point. . . In that sort of case an explanation in undeniably more appropriate. However, in the past we’ve had some comments that were incredibly unhelpful (at the best). What would you recommend as a reply for some of these coments? Just and explanation? Although some editors responded with a modicum of sense, the others are obviously willful mischief. S.dedalus 00:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting link. Some speculation:
 * The person requesting help on how to kill him or herself seems to be interested in making a suicidal gesture (he or she is interested in seeing the scares afterwards) - where the goal is to get the attention of people who could help make the person's life better, not to actually die. According to a Louis Dublin, a respected statistician, about a third of suicidal people fall in this category.  This should still be taken seriously.  People who want to make a suicidal gesture would not be resorting to such a serious measure if they were not in serious pain.  Furthermore, a fair number of these intended "suicidal gestures" turn out to be fatal.  The person should probably be informed that making a suicidal gesture could end up being lethal.  Wouldn't be a bad idea to ask the person why, and listen to what he or she says.
 * The person who suggested carbon monoxide or chlorine poisoning might have been seriously suicidal at some point in his or her life. Those suggestions are relatively well-researched.  Carbon monoxide poisoning is a high-lethality method.  What the person doesn't know is that it is quite painful (talk about the worst headache you ever had), and waiting for a modern car to poison you with enough carbon monoxide is quite slow.  So, that would be a slow and painful death.  On the bright side, if someone walks in, you could make a full recovery with the proper medical treatment.  I don't know as much about chlorine, but it also looks like a high-lethality, painful method.  The person should probably be informed that these methods are in fact painful.  Wouldn't be a bad idea to try to engage the person in a conversation.
 * The rest of the suggestions for how to kill oneself (sky-diving, setting oneself on fire, admitting to a crime) do not seem particularly serious, taking the issue too lightly. These people should probably be nudged that this is a serious issue, and if they don't have anything better to say they should just leave it alone.
 * The first two comments seem to be half-joking, half-well-intended. Some gentle advice on how to handle the issue better might be warranted.
 * The fourth comment isn't that bad - anti-depressants help some people. They don't always work, and occasionally make things work worse.
 * Last comment by the anon-IP is technically correct, but has an attitude of fear rather than genuine concern. A suicidal person might be offended by that.  Some gentle nudging on better ways of handling the situation might be a good idea.
 * Thanks,
 * Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah that seems like a good example why a guideline could help, because the overall impression given is probably quite bad to a genuinely suicidal person - people not being straight with you, or making fun of you, or telling you what you should or shouldn't do, or talking as if you weren't there. And no expression of any sadness or regret or whatever that a person may be feeling so awful they're considering this, no pointing towards any other online resources that might be helpful to the person. Looks like one of the editors tried to say something nice on the user's talk page though (although perhaps not actually true that things always get better) and that it maybe wasn't serious.
 * And at the end of the day it's allowing and encouraging discussion on a forum not intended for that purpose, and which is probably basically a bad choice of place to have any such discussions, both for Wikipedia and any suicidal persons. EverSince 09:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Very nice analyses, Armed Blowfish. If you really think a template would be counterproductive, I’ll simply add a link to policy on personal attacks. By the way chlorine gas poisoning is defiantly very painful and slow.
 * EverSince — Yes I agree, and there are many more examples of why a policy is needed here. S.dedalus 04:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, S.dedalus. : )  I could be wrong though; it's instinct, not an exact science.  Perhaps a collection of common misperceptions, and why they are wrong, might be helpful.
 * I am nervous about bringing up how some suicidal methods are quite painful. While it's okay to bring up the topic of suicide to a depressed person, since talking about it won't cause them to be suicidal if they weren't already, you could bring up a method that they haven't thought of.  So, if they bring up carbon dioxide poisoning, go ahead and tell them it's painful, but it might not be a good idea to bring up carbon dioxide poisoning on a list.
 * Thanks,
 * Armed Blowfish (mail) 05:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bystander effect
I disagree with the recent addition, because: a) it puts too much of a burden on editors to do something even if they don't want to/don't feel comfortable doing so; b) it sounds too much like an instruction; and c) it is a setup to make an editor feel guilty for not acting in the manner the section dictates. Anchoress 06:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Further, I don't believe Wikipedia is particularly prone the the Bystander effect. It pretty apparent that everyone seems to want a piece of the action around here, no more so than when there is Wikidrama to be squeezeed out of it. Rockpock  e  t  07:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems like a good idea to me. There's a lot of stigma surrounding suicide in most places, leading people with suicidal feelings to feel isolated.  Not receiving a response could very likely be worse than an imperfect one.
 * I'm not sure why contacting an administrator was recommended though. Administration being a technical role, many administrators may not feel qualified to handle it either, or may be unsure what to do besides block the user, which would be a bad idea.  If we started a WikiProject of people interested in helping, we could link to that.  However, it would need to have enough participants to handle the demand, or people would burn out quickly.
 * Thanks,
 * Armed Blowfish (mail) 07:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the problem is that no matter how isolated an editor feels, it's wrong (in my opinion) to force responsibility onto other editors for dealing with that isolation. The way the section reads right now, it says, in a subtle way, that people who encounter a threat of suicide or a suicidal editor are somehow morally obligated to act because that editor might feel rejected and somehow worse if there's no response, and furthermore that the non-acting editors must bear some of the responsibility if something bad happens to the nominally suicidal editor. Anchoress 07:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's saying that you are morally obligated, so much as that you shouldn't be afraid to say something just because you might say the wrong thing. The wrong thing can still be better than nothing at all.  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 07:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It says:

"In the case of a potentially suicidal message on Wikipedia, not answering could do more harm than would an imperfect response. It is important to respond to any suicidal post; if you do not feel capable of doing this, seek help from any administrator at Wikipedia:List of administrators."
 * Saying 'not answering could do more harm than would an imperfect response' is saying doing nothing could be harmful, which I think is an unfair burden. And saying 'if you do not feel capable of doing this, seek help from any administrator at Wikipedia:List of administrators' is saying editors should do something. I think at the very least editors should not get the impression from this essay that they should act, and I think ideally editors should be made to feel by any essay or guideline that it is perfectly OK to do nothing. If nothing else, picture this: we convey a message in an essay or guideline that editors who come across a nominally suicidal editor should do something. So, an editor comes across a self-declared suicidal editor. S/he would rather do nothing. S/he does something, because the essay/guideline told them to. The suicidal editor kills her/himself. The editor who would have rather done nothing feels responsible because s/he had the feeling they were doing the wrong thing when they acted, but acted anyway because the essay/guideline instructed them to. Anchoress 08:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With all this talk of how serious and potentially disastrous the subject is on the page, my opinion is that we need something that reminds users that just answering the suicide message is half the battle. Perhaps “A note about the Bystander effect” does not do this, in which case please make any modifications you see necessary. The section was intended to 1.) Emphasize that responding a message imperfectly is often better than not responding at all, and 2.) Clarify that a user is not obligated to respond to a message (except possibly where required by local law), but it would be nice if they could notify an experienced user of the problem. I believe that it implies no more responsibility of individual editors than would be placed on the observers of a person standing on a ledge. S.dedalus 05:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I Agree
If someone is suicidal, they're screaming for help, I agree we should redirect them to a hotline. We may be the last chance for them.

Flubeca 19:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

UK Samaritans
I said I would email the UK Samaritans, the best known charity in the UK helping suicidal people. I did, and they have emailed me back and sent me a document about on-line interactions, as well as a prospectus for their training courses. I think it would be a good idea if some senior (i.e. paid) people in the Wikimedia Foundation were to take some training with this organisation or its equivalent in another English-speaking country. I would like to link to the documents they sent but don't know the best way to do this (while I stay anonmyous in WP, and the email account I used to correspond with them is different from the one I usually use for WP-related matters). Itsmejudith 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Time to reject
This guideline is not progressing and has little chance of gaining consensus. While a laudable goal, there is no evidence that the participants here have the expertise to determine how to deal with suicidal people. Well intentioned meddling could have devastating consequences. --Kevin Murray 11:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:MFD seems appropriate. ALR 13:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no need. We don't need MfD, just tag as rejected and move on. Quite rightly. This is the silliest stuff that 'ere I saw, at least on-wiki. As a solution looking for a problem, it's instruction creep, and also potentially dangerous, as Kevin Murray pointed out. Moreschi Talk 13:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Policies and guidelines, ''A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. '' --Kevin Murray 14:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)