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 keep. Discussion of renaming or better defining the scope can continue on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides in fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. While the previous AfD established the notability of "Suicide in Fiction," it really did not justify a list of all suicides, and this article remains unclear and unclean. There needs to be some sort of qualification for notability; Wikipedia has thousands of articles about movies, games, and other fiction, all of which are considered notable themselves but include a suicide that is unmemorable or trivial but, as of now, could be included on this list.Yaksar (let's chat) 08:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons mentioned last time. If you agree suicides in fiction is notable, then why do you object to having a list of them? Dream Focus 10:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's an impossibly long list that only serves as a directory. This isn't a case of just a list that will never be fully finished; it's something that really won't be of any use to a reader without either more criteria or qualifications needed for notability. I also agree that, say Small Businesses are notable, but that doesn't mean that I feel an indiscriminate list would be fitting.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles on Wikipedia are never finished, that's why people keep editing them. Why would it need to be fully finished? And this is not indiscriminate. Dream Focus 15:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Potentially useful information for someone researching this topic. The article needing cleanup is not a reason for deletion.Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, to whom do you feel this would be potentially useful? Beyond someone trying to make, well, their own list of suicides in fiction with no qualifications, I can't see any other uses.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't need to prove itself useful, that not an inclusion criteria. And obviously some people do in fact look up the information. Even before it had anything linking to it, it still got over a thousand hits a month. [1] Click any date at random and see how many views it had. Dream Focus 12:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I don't like it," but it is an important topic. The list should be useful to interested people. ~~BTW how about some people from Shakespeare?~~ My bad. Some are there, but not all. Borock (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It's not indiscriminate, and I can't figure out what which of the 7 examples in WP:NOTDIR it would conceivably fall under. To an extent, any list, category, table or template is a "directory". "Unclear and unclean" is an argument I hadn't read before on AfD, and a welcome break from the cliches that abound here. However, the obvious solution to that problem is "clear it up" and "clean it up". Mandsford 17:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no way to clear or clean it up without changing the criteria, and there is no way to change the criteria on an article like this; the title describes what it is. Think about it, in an ideal state, this article would contain every single suicide in fiction ever, from comics to movies to videogames to myths. Even the qualification of "notable" suicides would be an improvement, rather than an all encompassing list of every fictional suicide.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you don't need to use the word "notable". Everything on the list is from a fictional source which has been proven notable enough to have its own article. So it isn't a real concern. Dream Focus 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is a proper topic for a stand-alone list. The nominator ought to remember that AfD is not a forum for cleanup. --Danger (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator has failed to articulate any reason for deletion: IINFO does not apply to a coherent list of topics like "suicide in fiction" because "suicides in fiction" is not a trivial cross-characterization, NOTDIR does not apply because this does not attempt to be a comprehensive directory of all possible fictional suicides. Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To comment on the below renaming issues, I find both of the major proposals unconvincing: "suicide in fiction" is a separate issue, suitable for its own article; this article is a list of major suicides in fiction. As far as "Notable suicides in fiction" or the like, 1) "notability" is a Wikipedia concept that doesn't need to be reflected in titles, and 2) Notability does not limit article contents, per WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listing everytime someone (sourced or not) has committed suicide in fiction is indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. Our list articles should have precise standards, but the criteria for inclusion for this list is overly broad and as such a discriminate article is impossible to achieve from the topic. Any such list that encourages editors to pile-in everything they can think of that fits the topic is unencyclopedic and shouldn't be here. Them From Space 18:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "unclear and unclean." is a reason to work on a list , or ask others to help work on it, but not a reason for deletion. Nothing notable is intrinsically unclear or unclean, it just takes careful editing. All lists of this sort have the implicit restriction of being limited to significant whatevers in notable subjects. In the case of fiction, we consistently consider fiction to encompass games, comics, films, and all other forms. If the list gets to long, we sometimes do divide by forms, but that is rarely necessary. As here, Wikipedia content is a balance between the considerations of NOT DIR and NOT PAPER. Both rules are necessary for a comprehensive modern encyclopedia. We do have standards, although very little in Wikipedia can have precise standards. If we eliminated everything where the standards were not precise, we'd be limiting our coverage to mere directory information, for everything beyond that takes judgement. The red herring that such lists include everything possible is absurd--the fictional works we consider notable are a very small proportion of the total. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I changed my reasons for the nomination to make them a bit more clear, I was somewhat rushed at the time. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your change in the middle of the discussion [2] is actually a call for improvement, not deletion. Unless I'm reading this wrong, you added "There needs to be some sort of qualification for notability; Wikipedia has thousands of articles about movies, games, and other fiction, all of which are considered notable themselves but include a suicide that is unmemorable or trivial but, as of now, could be included on this list." That's pretty much a variation of the old "this could be endless" argument (although my experience is that most books, movies, games, etc. do not include a suicide, since people don't enjoy that). Could-be-endless is of limited use as an argument. In an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, dubious additions can be, and usually are, taken out by another editor exercising common sense without need of a specially worded qualification. Mandsford 19:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Suicide in fiction (or so) and refocus as an article on the topic, rather than a list. This page is much cleaner and more concise than it was the last time I commented on its deletion in 2009, but I maintain my stance from then that an article focusing on the topic is better than a list of occurrences, no matter how well-pruned or -sourced said list may be. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 18:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When one looks, one immediately finds lots of relevant sources such as Fictional depiction of suicide in television films and imitation effects, Dostoevsky and suicide, Revolutionary Suicide in Toni Morrison's Fiction, Suicide and the media, Suicide in Henry James's fiction, Suicide and fiction, &c. The topic therefore has plenty of scope for improvement and the nomination just seems to be hand-wringing that the article is not better yet. Deletion would be disruptive and contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note below. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Room for improvement? Certainly. Legitimate reasons for deletion? None that I can see.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that while there has been at attempt to clean up the list since the last AfD, the list is still almost entirely based on primary sources and doesn't demonstrate any real-world significances (either cultural or literary). Of all of items listed, only three items actually have third-party sourcing, I'm not counting random plot summaries which don't contain any critical cometary either. And among those, only the suicide in The Sorrows of Young Werther actually establishes any real-world significances. This is just too few for a stand-alone list. So I will still have to go with delete. —Farix (t | c) 19:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See my comment, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction (2nd nomination). Subject is itself discussion in multiple books, and is the very focus of the title of those books. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which may justify an article on Suicide in fiction, but it does not justify this list, which—with the exception of three entries—is based entirely on primary sources. —Farix (t | c) 20:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agreed with your comment, however it seemed to argue more for an article about Suicide in fiction than it did for this list. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Many comments (in particular those by Cirt and Colonel Warden) are very convincing arguments for the creation of an article on Suicide in Fiction. Please note, however, that this is very different from a list of suicides, and the rationale behind one cannot be used to defend the other.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm the editor who originally split this material from List of suicides, and I've also supported deletion in the past two discussions. I'm not going to repeat myself, because the evidence of two and a half deletion discussions shows that the consensus will always be "keep and clean up". I am going to take the opportunity to point out that such a close (which will surely happen again) is fatuous nonsense. Lots of editors always show up to say "we can clean this up", and having staved of deletion with this promise they do not see any need to perform any actual cleanup, since after all the deletion discussion closed as "keep". If anyone other than me had worked on cleaning up the list, it might end up in a state worth keeping. I'm sure that, having read this, some commenters below me will promise to work extra hard on fixing up the list because they see what I mean and it's a big concern and everyone who supports keeping articles based on the possibility of cleanup naturally ought to put their money where their mouth is. I also know that that cleanup won't happen. It is silly to pretend that it will. It is equally silly to close this discussion with a rationale that assumes, as a pretext, that the cleanup will happen. As I've already noted, I'm as confident of that closure as I am that everyone involved will honestly mean what they say about cleanup, just as I am confident about the lack of results. I can't command the tide to turn back for me, and so I can't honestly make this a "delete" comment, but I do still feel obliged to condemn the eventual result of this discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most famous being Romeo and Juliet I feel a list of notable suicides would be better. Rename to List of suicides in notable fiction and cleanup/reference the list, my position from the last AfD remains un=changed here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no apparent reason for deletion. Not either a renaming of the article. Per all lists on wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I know it's too late. The list serves nothing - why do you suppose it's an orphan? At best, this should be a category for fiction works that have suicide as the main component. Let me ask you this - when I create List of homicides in fiction and put thirty items in it, will all you "keep"-ers vote keep when it gets (rightfully) hauled into AFD? How about List of cats in fiction? Okay, okay, we'll start off with List of blue-eyed people in fiction and just go from there, okay? The list we're talking about now is no less ridiculous, no less subjective, and no less infuriating. It's true that articles (and lists) don't ever have to be "complete" (that's usually not possible), but they should have a chance of at least being comprehensive. What would this list have to look like in order to become a featured list? Would it have twice as many entries? Ten times as many? A thousand? Would all the works have to be notable? Or would the characters have to be notable? Or perhaps they should only be included if the actual suicide itself was notable? This list is a mess and should be deleted; it has no hope of ever being more than a mess. Matt Deres (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just something important people should take note of: any list on wikipedia, or indeed any article, should be something that could potentially reach featured article status. I can see no possible way this could do so. In its ideal state, this article would contain every suicide in all works of fiction on wikipedia at the time, a ridiculously long page. And no, length alone is not a reason to delete a page, but imagine what this would look like. Names upon names upon names of suicides, some memorable, most insignificant, that could not be viewed as helpful to anyone except, well, someone making a list of the exact same thing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. My opinion on this still hasn't changed. It might be possible to write a good article about suicide in fiction, but it's impossible to create a comprehensive and discriminate list. In the alternative, I'd support a rename to "suicide in fiction"... but you'd basically have to start over with less emphasis on trivia and more emphasis on the concept as a whole. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is indeed a "trivial cross-characterization", despite the fervent hand-waving to the contrary. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that the criteria are vague for defining whether a suicide is notable enough for this list. However, this, more or less, holds for all wikipedia entries. --Cyfal (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Suicide in fiction. Suicide in fiction is a clearly notable topic, and a proper encyclopedic documentation of this topic should include a list of significant suicides depicted in fiction. This article is just an unconnected list for now, with no global commentary on the subject, but this can be remedied. Cenarium (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Suicides in literature to include stage plays (e.g. 8 suicides in Eugene O'Neill's works). As is the article is woefully incomplete and probably never will be finished, but that's OK. The topic is valid, at least for now until greater changes come in reading practice and technology (to wit definitions of literature) A more complete list on the topic could be valuable source for research perspectives, etc. --Dan.sampey (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2011 (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.