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.
Problems with neutrality and synthesis. It's just a loose list of suicides of anybody who might in some way be connected to the finance industry, used as a soapbox for "a deep-seated guilt amongst bankers as they realize that they are harmful to people in order to make money". Some of the cited sources actually take pains to point out that there isn't a rash of banker suicides in 2014, or point out that suicide is hardly specific to workers in one industry. bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Article content does not determine notability" "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." This article is notable. It has been covered by NY Post, Bloomberg News and Washington Post amongst other mainstream news sources. A simple search on any mainstream search engine of '2014 banker suicides' will produce hundreds of news results. If the POV is faulty or there is a soapbox being used, then the article requires cleanup.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UnifiedLeft (talk • contribs)
Conditional Keep Cleanup is necessary - bobrayner is correct in the fact that it has problems with neutrality. I now agree with UnifiedLeft that the topic is indeed notable enough to deserve an article, as per WP:GNG However, that makes the status of the article no better. If the article remains unedited or unfixed, then at least a temporary withdrawal of the article is called for until it can be adequately repaired. --Flipandflopped (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if its because of a "confirmation bias", "conspiracy", or an "investigation". Let's put the idea of bankers killing themselves where it belongs... our collective conscious (via Wikipedia)! Let's try to normalize banking suicides by promoting them ... Publicize and encourage the suicide of those responsible for the economic collapse, bailouts for the super-rich, and daily pillagers of the public's money by promoting them. Pleze expand the "2014 Banker Suicides" Wikipedia Page
Of course its a soapbox, but its not "just a soapbox" its a notable entry that is poorly written. So, remove the soapbox and move on. "Article content does not determine notability" "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." UnifiedLeft (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts (and many of the responding redditors, incidentally). This paragraph from one of the sources in the article puts it well:
Regardless, this morbid fascination of suicides within the community of financial professionals may be nothing more than random fluctuations in data. We won't know until someone actually studies the data.
That source also has a sentence which refers to this very article. I don't think it reflects well on Wikipedia for it to be there. ansh66622:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It only matters if the subject is notable, "Ansh666" quotes a mainstream article about the subject that she/he is claiming is not noteworthy. There are hundreds of articles about the subject. If you want to frame the entry as a myth ie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunny_Man <--- this silly article then fine. But the fact that you can find so many articles about the subject is what makes it notable not whether you believe that the phenomena is "real". Be real, if you don't like the way its written, then frame it as a myth or discredited, but don't act like its made up, it is being covered by major news sources.UnifiedLeft (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still, if notability has been gained by high-ranking media outlets (i.e Washington Post, NY Post) then it deserves an article as per WP:GNG. Obviously, as I stated before, cleanup is necessary. Also, a criticism section could be made to express any doubts and criticisms. --Flipandflopped (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited articles from CNN, Newsday, RT, Bloomberg, Fox News, ZeroHedge, Wall Street Journal, NY Post, the Atlantic, and Business Insider which focused on multiple cases as a group, just like this article does. I strongly encourage people to remove the soapbox and POV if they exist and clean up this article. Wikipedia guidelines state, "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Its been demonstrated that this article's subject matter is more notable than 99.9% of articles on Wikipedia. I think it is proper to remove the "marked for deletion" and clean it up if it needs.UnifiedLeft (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — For all those interested, I am considering conducting a major reconstruction of the article over the next day or two using more adequate information presented in the sources rather than simply listing all of the suicides. If any possible deletion could hold off until then, it would be much appreciated - all this article needs is a major re-write. --Flipandflopped (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not entirely surprising that UnifiedLeft and Flipandflopped agree; the former account's only purpose is to promote this polemic and the latter account was created less than 24 hours ago. Which brings us back to the Reddit canvassing.
Of course the article is a soapbox, its my soapbox. You have every right to remove me from my soapbox and adjust the POV. But the article should not be deleted because although its biased as hell (i wrote it lol, of course its biase) it should be cleaned up and NOT deleted because it is notable as verified by 3rd parties which is IAW Wikipedia rules.
Delete. The two Bloomberg articles state that there's no trend here, just a bit of media sensationalism. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If the article were broadened, maybe it would work, but to pinpoint 2014 for what may (or may not even) be a statistical blip - rather than, say, 1929 - is a bit weak. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOTNEWS. It's very difficult to establish epidemiological clusters. An article of this type would need to include epidemiological research ie. suicide cluster (aka copycat suicide); otherwise it's magical thinking, amateur hour. The Bloomberg article concurs.[1] -- GreenC01:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this "debate" is about people not liking the subject matter. There are articles on Wikipedia about aliens, tarot card readers, and many other subjects that we may believe (or know) to be false. But that's not a reason to delete the articles. Now "Clarityfiend" wants to cite 2 articles and claim that the fact that they dispute that the suicides that they are reporting on represent a trend, fine, say that in the entry. But don't try and say on one hand I can find all of these articles that address a certain subject and on the other hand say what they are addressing is not "real" so I have to delete the entry. Lots of things on Wikipedia aren't "real", unicorns, trickle-down economics, a whole host of things, but you still find an entry for them. This phenomena has been covered by CNN, Wall Street Journal, NY Post, Bloomberg, RT, and many more news outlets which are cited in the entry. You can't say that its not being covered, because it is and I've already proven that. What you should do is to fix the POV and bias. I strongly suspect that the reasons you have claimed for deleting this entry(which I have defeated already) are not the real reasons why you want to delete this entry.UnifiedLeft (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cluster scares happen all the time, they are tabloid news fare. They can still be notable, is this one? There's no long term coverage: most of the sources date within a few weeks of each other, within the past month or so. There are also no experts, no epidemiologists, just journalism sensationalism. It appears to be garden variety run of the mill cluster scare. If there was long term coverage, and reliable sources from experts, I would be more inclined. -- GreenC01:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Um, excuse me, but what happened to Assume Good Faith? I try not to take offence to the personal claims against me being a "fake account" Although I guess I am reasonably suspicious, being new, but I assure you I am nothing but a new editor to wikipedia, and it is wikipedia policy not to assume vandalism. Does it not say something that bobrayner is now down to the point of accusing other wikipedians with opposing viewpoints of being vandals? I am not attempting to promote any sort of agenda for anyone, and only wish to improve the article, so please, do not harass. I may be new, but by my understanding is that the WP:GNG qualifies an article on any subject that has gained any so much notability as being eligible for an article, no matter how wrong any reporting may have been. The article could go on to later mention that the entire theory ended up being false, but the article still stands. Any opinions that ALL media outlets had on the speculation can be included in the article in a criticism section or etcetera. I am NOT vandalizing, and I apologize if it appeared this way to anyone (somehow). If I am misinterpreting the 'notability' policy, please let me know, but as of this point I will continue to do all I can to improve this article. Thanks. --Flipandflopped (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because news organizations have reported on the topic, that disqualifies it as news? It's a theory proposed by journalists which has gained significant amounts of notability and criticism alike in the media, and therefore deserves representation on wikipedia. If everything the NYP has ever reported on is now ineligible on the behalf of it being news, then, well... --Flipandflopped (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Major rewrite is now available. Can we start fresh with this rewrite? I neutralized and bettered the article, and added a criticism section. Notability is obvious, the article is protected by WP:GNG, and has been noted and reported upon by countless reliable media outlets, all with different opinions on the legitimacy of the topic. With those qualifications, that is something wikipedia readers most definitely should have the ability to find here as par Wikipedia Regulations. If the article is deleted, so be it, but I would appreciate a real response. --Flipandflopped (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I've seen in what I've read, this is just a bunch of media sensationalism, loosely connecting suicides that have happened all over the place with the one common similarity of bankers. I'm not sure if it is notable. Something to remember: "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SOAPBOX, and probably fails notability criteria. ~FeedintmParley02:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your respectful input. What if we were to more clearly outline the "2014 Banker Suicides" as a notable theory amongst the media? Does the article have to suggest that the Suicides are in any way relevant - could it not just be about their appearance in the media and their usage by journalists? Isn't wikipedia supposed to be neutral as to what outside sources deem to be relevant? My goal with my edit was to provide the opinion of the two different media outlets without explicitly saying which of the two had the relevant opinion. I apologize if the article is irrelevant.. but I still think that a negative critical analysis of a theory made by a credible paper (BusinessWeekly) - that theory being of a correlation in suicides amongst bankers - is a notable critical analysis. Am I wrong? If so, please specify, as I generally am not sure if I am correct or not. I still am trying to get used to what is acceptable on wikipedia and what isn't. :) thanks for any consideration. --Flipandflopped (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply — note: I think the user Bearian meant that the article qualifies as an 'unusual article', not that just because we have unusual articles the article is immune to deletion.
Delete per WP:NOT as stated above. As Feedintm pointed out, as well, even the number of news articles being used as sources are are not necessarrily sufficient as signifigant coverage. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. I don't for a moment suppose that there is any significant suicide phenomenon, but there is a significant media phenomenon. In exactly the same way that having an article on the Tulip Mania does not mean that we believe tulip bulbs will rise in price for ever, the article does not endorse the theory it discusses. All the best, RichFarmbrough, 10:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Well the tulip bulb thing is a famous episode in history. This is a some news articles with no enduring quality. If there was some reason to suspect this could have enduring quality, I would have !vote Keep. But cluster scares happen all the time, they are like bus plunge stories, they are common. NOTNEWS tells us to be careful about making too much of something just because it was reported in the news. -- GreenC15:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep New additions to the page have removed the POV and substantiated notability claim.BankingCrisis (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete One of the references in the article [2] mentions the coverage this got, and stated it even has its own Wikipedia page, linking to this article. It then shows clear evidence that this isn't a real thing, it just nonsense. Over thirty thousand suicides a year, does it matter if six of the people were in the same industry? DreamFocus08:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You omit the fact that all 6 were within weeks of each other and were all public deaths, significantly trimming down that '30,000' number to mere hundreds of public suicides. Sure, it may be nothing at all, but even if the theory is nonsense, the media coverage and analysis is significant enough for it to have an article. As for wikipedia being mentioned, editors or the community ourselves have no control what our readers (such as the writer of the bloomberg article) choose to do with our information. How the information presented on wikipedia is used in other contexts is irrelevant to the article's sanctity in my opinion. --Flipandflopped (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may be a flash in the pan that is forgotten next year, but for the time being it's notable. If no one remembers it later on down the road, we can always delete it then. It's getting substantial press for the time being though. Bali88 (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it *is* one, I'm saying we might find out next year that is was one and was very quickly forgotten. However, it's relevant now. If it becomes not relevant, we can always remove it laterBali88 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because it is about bankers who happen to commit suicide. If the article was was about people who committed suicide BECAUSE they were bankers then it would be notable. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In support of earlier keep recommendation: The article is not about bankers who happen to commit suicide. This article is notable because it is about the 2014 banker suicides which the media (Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, RT, Business Insider, et al) is reporting on.UnifiedLeft (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ansh666 should be reminded of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus "WP:CON" and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion "WP:Vote". Please do not strikethrough others' comments in the future. Thank you.BankingCrisis (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not going to bother to follow the rules here, please just go away. From WP:AFDFORMAT: You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line. There's context for that statement on the page, I'm deliberately not giving it so that you'll read it. ansh66622:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a vote. And you are trying to make it look like they changed positions. So, don't try to convince people this is a vote and don't strike-through others' comments and try to make it seem like they changed their minds.
Your reference says: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." & "Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between and after the *, as in "• Delete Keep".UnifiedLeft (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you're going to do it that way, keep it unbolded. And stop lecturing AfD regulars on the "rules" of the place. ansh66619:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that simply stamping "not news" is a valid argument. 1. Shouldn't any concensus be reached through showing how the the entry should be classified as "not news". Are we to assume all the premises and conclusions that "User:Secret" has by one stamp with no context? 2. The afd guidlines direct that notability is a standard that if me guarantees an entry should be acceptable. For reasons demonstrated by several others earlier, this entry has achieved the "notability" standard. One would have to demonstrate that "notability" has not been achieved.BankingCrisis (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.