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. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article appears to serve no purpose other than to act as a magnet for people who want to add unencyclopedic "how-to" information, which is a clear example of WP:NOT.

After various editors have now removed this extraneous content, what remains appears to be redundant, since every one of the topics covered seems to be a mode of death (asphyxiation, exsanguination, electrocution, death by gunshot, etc.) which already has its own detailed article elsewhere (or should have one), and a top-level summary of all known methods already exists at the Suicide#Suicide_methods subsection.

I propose that any remaining useful content in this article be aggressively refactored into the relevant cause-of-death-specific articles, each of which should then be briefly referenced in the short list given in the Suicide#Suicide_methods section, and that this article be turned into a redirect to that subsection. The Anome 12:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, September 12 2006, see discussion. Keep, May 15 2006, see discussion. Speedy keep, 2005-10-21, see discussion.

• ???. An AfD is not needed for an aggressive refactoring. -- Eugène van der Pijll 12:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is possibly called for, in this case. Abeg92contribs 12:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howso? An AfD is about whether an article should be deleted. All manner of other edits up to and including merging and redirecting are done without needing to go through AfD (not that I believe merging would be appropriate in this case). Bryan Derksen 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Keep it encyclopedic, yes, but putting it into the main article might make it a bit too big. That said, I'm not entirely hostile to an aggressive merge and redirect. I'll keep tabs on this discussion. Abeg92contribs 12:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting putting its content into the main suicide article: I'm talking about putting any useful non-duplicative content into the individual cause-of-death articles, and leaving references to them in the "suicide methods" subsection. -- The Anome 13:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unmerged — Wikipedia is not censored, and deletion is not a substitute for "aggressive refactoring," a.k.a. cleanup ➥the Epopt 12:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advocating censorship: I'm recommending refactoring into a very short subsection of suicide, and appropriately detailed treatments in cause-of-death subarticles, and then turning this article into a redirect. -- The Anome 13:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Make as encyclopedic as needed, but merging into Suicide is a ridiculous suggestion when that article is already 40KB - David Gerard 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See comments above: this article as-is is a compendium of duplicated information that could better be developed in the more specific articles. -- The Anome 13:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unmerged—This topic is covered in many reliable sources and is of use to many people, including not only those who are suicidal, but also for writers, parents, etc. DickClarkMises 14:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I knew this AfD would come the moment I saw the article was on the mailing list. This is an entirely reasonable subject to have an encyclopedia article about, it can be done in an informative and NPOV manner. Merging into suicide wouldn't be a good idea, that article is already very large and too much would need to be cut from this article to make it fit. Renaming to List of suicide methods might be warranted. Bryan Derksen 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. This is a perfectly encyclopedic topic, though Bryan Derksen's suggestion of a move does have some promise. Hut 8.5 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but clean up. Could do with some more sourcing, particularly for the individual "methods". Also agree that renaming to List of suicide methods is preferable, it's more clear than the current title. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per above. Not censored. Infodmz 15:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. The content of this article constitutes a threat to human life, and its presence is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Newyorkbrad 16:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, and I would strongly contest the idea that any article can kill someone. Articles don't kill people, people do. DickClarkMises 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, anyone wishing to kill themself probably isn't going to consult an article online about how to go about it. --Cyrus Andiron 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per Newyorkbrad. Sometimes there are things more important in life than keeping uncensored. Sorry, I have a friend that was close to suicide and told me she came to this site to look up information. Part Deux 17:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work to change the policy if you don't agree with it. There is nothing illegal about providing this information. To exclude this information for personal reasons is clearly a violation of all sorts of policies, including WP:NPOV. Information is not evil, folks—not any of it! DickClarkMises 18:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again you've missed the point. I just said that there are more important things in life sometimes than upholding an ideal. Not illegal, but not ethical either. And sorry if I'm emotional, but when I have a friend who nearly is no longer here because of the information presented on this page, then yes, information is evil. Would you post information on where Jews during the Holocaust, so anybody (including authorities) could look it up? Part Deux 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two examples are completely not related. The article is not trying to advocate suicide. Besides, you couldn’t provide reliable sources about the location of the Jews anyway. It would be unsourced and removed as such. I’m not a big fan of the article either (I don’t think it’s written well). If it gets deleted, it should be because it is not a good article not because of moral objections. --Cyrus Andiron 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Aggressively refactor details of the "mechanics" of the means of death ("Burning to death can take several minutes to several hours...", etc.) into their respective articles, per nom, and (not per nom) restructure other content here by topic rather than by method. I reluctantly accept the need for this page to stop the suicide article from becoming too long, but it should focus on topics like the relative frequency of different methods, differences between culture and time period in suicide methods, etc. A brief list of significant suicide methods at the start of the article would be acceptable, but providing detail on a per-method basis is (a) an unnecessary duplication of more specific articles, and (b) worryingly close to a "how to commit suicide" guide. EALacey 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Encyclopedic topic. Could probably use a rename to "List of suicide methods". --Carnildo 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a how-to manual which has most methods referenced only to other Wikipedia articles. Edison 19:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Aggressively refactor per nom. Lemonsawdust 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an encyclopedic article about an encyclopedic and notable topic. Merging is not good either, as the best way to present information on suicide methods is to collect it into one page, with ((main)) templates where further information is available. Prolog 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I think the topic is encyclopedic- although it should be worded appropiately as to ensure if is not a user guide of suicide. Obviously suicide is an emmotive subject, but if appropiately written, it could be a useful article Thunderwing 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep very encyclopediac--Sefringle 04:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand - needs information on things like success rates for the various methods, differential selection based upon gender, etc. Johntex\^talk 05:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Refactor or Redirect or Merge or all that. The point is, AfD is not Cleanup®. *sigh* I find it highly ironic, but not at all funny on so many levels, that this article, of all things, ended up in AfD just because some people cry for refactoring... =/ --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, WP:NOT censored. >Radiant< 08:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to WikiHow, if possible. ffm ✎talk 13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not. The licensing doesn't match. >Radiant< 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forget the licensing, that's the most tasteless suggestion yet. Newyorkbrad 14:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who cares if it is "tasteless"? We are here to right a useful, informative encyclopedia. There are notable, reliable sources on this topic. We are not here to decide for people what is appropriate knowledge. It is perfectly "acceptable" for people to want to research this topic. Protecting people from themselves is a job for family and friends, not encyclopedia editors. DickClarkMises 15:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I meant was particularly "tasteless" was the suggestion of transwikiing to Wikihow, thus acknowledging that this article is indeed a "how-to" guide and should be openly acknowledged and promoted as such. Newyorkbrad 22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a bonafide subject with encyclopedic value. --Ezeu 16:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Suicide after cleanup and summarization. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't censored, true - but policy isn't a suicide pact either. An article on suicide is enough. -Doc^g 23:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is informational and interesting. If you don't like it, don't look at it. Why is death/suicide so taboo? Get over it. Also I'm pretty mad that a lot of this page got deleted. A lot of valuable information was taken out. Thanks for that. NegativeSpace 02:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:EALacey - I agree that this article should "focus on topics like the relative frequency of different methods, differences between culture and time period in suicide methods, etc" --Richard 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but merge into Suicide per above. — Deckiller 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Do not merge into the suicide article. That article is overly long. SniperWolf1564 14:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. I agree in particular with Prolog and Johntex - use 'main' templates where info is duplicated but keep it grouped together here, and add more info on epidemiology, stats of use and completion rates etc. It's possible a few suicidal people might come looking here for info, but actually what we've currently got wouldn't be that much use to them in a 'how to' sense anyway (in addition to WP:NPOV). Rename method -> methods. Eve
• Strong Delete is needed for this article. It is presented as a How-To, and considering that the subject matter is already available on their own separate articles, there is no need for this article to remain. It's about as logical as having another article related to Injury named Injury method. Aquatics 23:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Gerard --Twilight 09:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly rename - the title sounds a little weird when it is describing different methods. Plural perhaps? Also far from complete. --MoRsE 09:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Complements the main article on suicide. A Keep/Delete decision should not be based on moral objections: WP:NOT#CENSORED. Per above no merge because of size but possibly rename. The doctor23 22:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is potentially useful in a wide range of research uses, curiosity etc. The only possible reason for deletion is based on some people's individual moral decisions, which is a slippery slope indeed. List of sex positions, Self-induced abortion#Methods, Reparative therapy#Techniques... on and on. There are things on wikipedia everyone disagrees with, this is an opportunity for neutrality, not an excuse for censorship. - cohesion 01:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep keep it. people should be allowed to access fair information about how to kill themselves if they like. Don't censor. Leave wikipedia free and open. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.180.62 (talk • contribs).
• Keep The article could be improved, but even though some find the topic objectionable, overall the article adds to our presentation of knowledge. --Pete 10:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously this is a keep. Christopher Connor 14:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has encyclopedic value, and this is not a How-To. If you want to see a How-To, I advise you to view the ASH (alt.suicide.holiday) methods file plastered all over the net and available here. Wikipedia brown 17:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While that article is indeed not a how to, there are strict guidelines in journalism which state that you do not show graphic images or talk about method when it comes to suicide. This is because it has been shown that suicide rates by one particular method increase in the public after it has been in the media. 203.206.92.154 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. My first reaction was merge to Suicide, but that article is already overlong. It is clear that this Method article started out as a long section within the Suicide article, constituting something like half of it in page-length, so Method was split off to its own article with a note at the original section heading. There is already a merge-discussion at both articles to re-merge the two, and the current consensus (of one) is that it is too long to merge. That said, I think it should be renamed to Suicide Methods, seeing as there is more than one method discussed. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, do not merge into suicide. Sufficiently encyclopedic, WP:NPOV, long, significant and discrete topic. Clean up or possibly merge into epidemiology and methodology of suicide. SonoftheMorning 20:28, 23 April 2007 (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.