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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide_methods[edit]

This page should be deleted The suicide methods page has been proposed for deletion 2 times previously, but these attempts have been unsuccessful, for whatever reason. There are a number of very good reasons why this page should be deleted:

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a manual. It is not meant to be used as a resource by people who wish to kill themselves, but it clearly can be. Consider the following which was written on wrist slashing

"Slashing or slitting one's wrists entails cutting through the wrists until one of the arteries is reached. People choosing this method die because of the massive blood loss from the radial artery or the ulnar artery. This method is also frequently used as self-harm, and it is not an immediately lethal method; therefore, not all people who slash their wrists intend suicide (this is then called parasuicide where suicide is either not sought or is not accomplished).

It is generally difficult to die by slashing the wrists since the arteries tend to try to spasm shut in response. Bleeding to death by veins is even harder and rarer. It can take a few hours or even more to finally die from the blood loss, depending on body weight, clotting problems (such as alcohol or aspirin in the blood), etc."

This gives a lot of information to anyone who wishes to end their life in this manner. It tells them some of the problems which prevent a successful suicide, and how to solve them in such a way that will allow death to occur (ie, use aspirin to prevent blood clotting). This is ethically bankrupt, and it is not what wikipedia should be about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a manual.

Secondly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are some types of information which is already banned from wikipedia, such as information about people who are non notable. This policy is designed merely to prevent self promotion. Surely it is just as admirable for wikipedia to prevent suicide.

Opponents to the deletion of this article may claim that wikipedia shouldn't be censored. But the thing is, wikipedia is not value neutral. Wikipedia is about enforcing a public good, and helping the world through providing access to information which can help people. A suicide manual doesn't help anyone, but it does target vulnerable members of our community. About 1 in 5 people will experience depression at some point in their lifetime. Many people who experience this debilitating illness will consider suicide as a way of alleviating their suffering, even wikipedia users. We owe these people a chance at life by protecting them from information which they may use to kill themselves.

I am aware that it can be argued that the information itself wont kill anyone. That people who wish to kill themselves will do so even if they can't compare methods. But my point is that resources like the suicide methods page will increase their chances of commiting suicide effectively. It is well known that medical practioners have much higher suicide rates than the general population. This is because they are more successful at killing themselves during suicide attempts than people without medical training. Likewise, I believe that this suicide methods page will lead to more successful suicide attempts.

Finally, who wants to read in the newspaper that some depressed teenager killed themselves using wikipedia as a manual. That will happen unless this page is deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katie32 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• • Note - this nom is Katie32's first edit at WP. Akradecki 17:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a disclaimer would do the trick? something pointing them to the right places that would help them solve the reasons that lead to the death wish in the first place? FreddyE 09:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recomendations[edit]

• Delete. This article may adhere to all the guidelines laid down by Wikipedia, but there are times to ignore all rules. There is no reason to have this page other than assisting a would-be suicide. Assisting suicide is illegal in many countries. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  17:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well written article, may be useful. JIP | Talk 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThis article is helpful, and shouldn't be deleted just because it provides accurate and specific details on how people may end their life. If people really wanted to end their lives the information to do so can be found just as easily from many other sources. And all of this is the opinion of I, a depressed, but not suicidal, teenager. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.233.70.103 (talk • contribs)
• Delete - this is a how-to guide. Much of the text is given over to 'common pitfalls' of suicide methods. --Nydas 19:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WilyD. --Huon 19:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Akradecki. This is only enyclopedic in the internet age but here we are and the article is a good one. NeoFreak 19:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Deglamourises suicide by making it seem gruesome not heroic. As encyclopedic as Torture#Torture_devices_and_methods. Could be worded better though. Molerat 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NOT makes reference to several specific indiscriminate collections of information, and this is not any of those. It is most certainly not an indiscriminate list. It has an obvious and reasonable theme for wikipedia to cover in an encyclopedic way, which it does. What's more, there is certainly no evidence that the sky is falling in terms of wikipedia being used as a resource for depressed teens who want to kill themselves. --Kchase T 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, well written article, may be useful. Just needs a few more diagrams ;-). WP:NOT a how to manual - . Even if it doesn't tell you tell you foolproof ways of suicide, this is bad enough. Depressed people on don't need to be pushed. Ohconfucius 02:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and block re-creation. Ignore all rules and common sense apply here. The ideas in this article need not be censored per se; they can be covered in articles about Electrocution, Injury, etc. The problem is not the ideas themselves, but the fact they are brought together in one article. Kla'quot ^Sound 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Neutral for now. I suspect that the audience for this article includes some people suffering from clinical depression who may be pushed towards or over the edge by the article. However, I'm still waiting to hear from the experts to decide whether this is just a hunch of mine or whether there is any evidence it would happen. Regarding the morality and NPOV issues expressed in this debate, there is a difference between "imposing anti-suicide morality" and "speaking to depressed people in an ethical way." We need to find a way to do the latter and avoid the former. Kla'quot ^Sound 22:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per arguments already expressed above --Clawed 04:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tag for some clean up (I agree with the the scant OR). Katie while your intentions maybe good your reasoning is flawed. First off, the reasons those "How to" articles don't exist is precisely because Wikipedia is not a manual and this article isn't a how to but rather an encyclopedic overview of a social phenomenon that is related to the main suicide article. Just as we have articles on rape, plagues, and child molestation because of the encyclopedic merit of their contents so to we have this article. I agree that the article is not perfect but that is why it needs clean up not deletion. A fundamental principle is that "Knowledge is Power" and sometimes you need to throw off the cover of the darker and uglier parts of existance to show it as it is. I would say this article (in a more ideal state) can actually serve an immense benefit in preventing suicides rather then encourage it. In their depressed state with only a shadow of knowledge, an individual can fantasize and visualize an ideal concept of suicide. But when the stark reality of what suicide actually is and what it means hits you, that knowledge can knock a person out of their fantasy concept and maybe the grim reality will cause them to reconsider. An ignorant mind is far more dangerous then an encyclopedia entry. 205.157.110.11 10:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, encyclopedic and sourced article. The nomination is an attempt at censorship and the nominator even created a new account for this purpose. Prolog 10:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - IAR was made for articles like this, so that the encyclopedia does not become embroiled in a criminal and horrible quaqmire. I agree with Kla'quot. Bringing together such information is dangerous. Common sense should prevail. Sure Wikipedia is not censored, but this only goes up to a point. The true nature of this article is plain to see: it's morally wrong. Ultimately, we as editors should never condone such an article, the first step on a slippery slope that could well lead readers into dangerous territory and unspeakable harms. However small chance of that happening, we must respond to this chance. Otherwise, We, in the end, would be culpable. Jpe|ob 11:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE THIS ARTICLE...as a therapist who knows of people who have committed suicide using their college textbook as a handbook, the odds of this website being used as a guide are very high. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.89.251.1 (talk • contribs) .
• Extremely Strong Delete - For every reason listed above. I just find it immoral that theres a page dedicated to informing readers on how to kill oneself. There's absolutely no reason for this to be allowed. ETod09 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Maybe the style could use work, but I don't see any reason to delete this. This is not inherently a how-to guide, and it is not that detailed anyway.Voice-of-All 21:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• El keepo - No valid reason for deletion given. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of all knowledge. --Cyde Weys 22:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Topic is encyclopedic. I can sympathize with the nom, but since when did "needs work" equate to "should be deleted"? Luna Santin 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let's not let our differing ideologies get in the way of what this article is: informative, thorough, well researched and encyclopedic. Let's leave our moral outrage out of Wikipedia. To the editor who submitted this for deletion, please consider rereading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Throw 00:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:NOT. "Wikipedia is about enforcing a public good." - no, it's not, it's about freely providing quality information to those seeking it (which may or may not be considered "public good", as this AfD clearly shows). -- int19h 07:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to be a sensible scheme for splitting out detail from suicide. Information is not "morally wrong". — Matt Crypto 10:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Any argument that suicide is good or bad, wrong or right, is strictly a matter of an individual's personal opinions and beliefs. It should be noted that suicide has been regarded as both abhorrant and supremely honorable. Therefore we are left with technical nuetrality. It should not be deleted for the remaining grisliness alone, as that would be tantamount to simple censorship. Furthermore, anyone looking to seriously kill themselves should be given out of a sort of humanitarian aid the most complete resouces to do it as cleanly and easily as possible. If they are intent on ending their life, it can't be very good in their esteem, and out of mercy they deserve a good death. Then again, this is just my personal opinion. Even more pointedly, it could be argued that reading all the heretofor unknown unpleasant details of the reader's self-proposed end of one's life may even DISCOURAGE suicide, and therefore SAVE lives. For example, someone intending to jump out of a six story window may come across this article and find that there is a ten percent chance of living from this. Discovering that it isn't instant 100% guaranteed death as portratyed in movies, they may start to consider life after such an event to their persons and their opinion may be -slightly- swayed in the direction of just toughing life out. And lastly, in my own personal experience, I will honestly admit I came to this article considering ways of ending my own life, and after perusing it, am now just thinking of going out and getting really drunk as an alternative. The article itself in summary is "living" (yeah, i'm funny) factual proof that transitioning from life to death is not as easy as a painless flick of a switch, and that there is indeed, no easy way out.11:58, 15 September 2006 69.149.178.129
• Keep for now, but bring back in a month if it has not been cleaned up, referenced and purged of original research and creative writing. Guy 12:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is about providing information, not arbitrary morality policing. Delete this article and you're on the slippery slope to deleting many more.4hodmt 13:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Wikipedia is not censored, and may contain triggering information. See the general disclaimer. However this has to be a weak keep, as their is a lack of counterpoints to the methods presented, and of clear references. LinaMishima 14:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP not censored, but obviously this page needs to be on peoples' watch lists to ensure that it doesn't get out of hand. I can honestly say that no one considering suicide would learn anything here they couldn't learn in hundreds of other places, and at least here, we can prevent it from becoming a how-to guide. The information here is certainly encyclopedic (needs sourcing, but not much is controversial there), and deleting it wouldn't help the encyclopedia in any way. Mangojuice^talk 18:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs better sourcing, but for the most part, it's a reasonably good article. --Carnildo 18:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—The suicide methods page has been proposed for deletion 2 times previously, but these attempts have been unsuccessful for precisely the reason that it will shortly have been proposed for deletion 3 times—unsucessfully. It is a legitimate topic that covers a number of subtopics—several of which are historically or culturally significant. Efforts to delete this article verge on censorship (i.e., controlling access to information to stabilize or improve society). It involves suppression of ideas with the intent of controlling perceptions; classic indicators of censorship. Censorship invariably involves restricting information that does not match the value system of those who censor. Although topics such as obscene speech & sedition have been routinely censored (even in the U.S. where the First Amendment to the United States Constitution specifies that Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech); removing discussion of suicide methods, when assisted suicide is legal in states such as Oregon, would be setting new standards of control. True, Wikipedia relies heavily on consensus, which provides for periodic attempts at censorship by members sincerely interested in the good of humankind (or some subset of humankind). But in the end a neutral point of view, which acknowledges a multiplicity of views, will prevail. Williamborg (Bill) 04:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I have been watching this debate and I think that both sides have points that can't be ignored, and so I think a compromise might be in order.

First of all, slippery slope arguments are being made on both sides. Would deleting this article be a slippery slope to more extreme censorship? Maybe a little bit, but I doubt there are many other articles that people could use the same arguments for deletion as strongly as this one, so I don't think we have much to worry about there. If we keep it, will we see articles about methods of sabotaging airplanes or raping children? I doubt that too. The MOST IMPORTANT thing is that we are not arguing about deleting other articles and we are not arguing about adding a rape methods article -- we are debating THIS article alone. I didn't stumble across this article while having suicidal thoughts, I read it because the subject is fascinating. Personally, I fall on the side of the people that speculate that, unless one is already determined to kill onesself, an article about methods isn't going to persuade them to do it. The truth is, however, that I don't really know what it would be like to be seriously considering taking my own life, and most of you probably don't either. Too much of this debate is based on speculation. In the spirit of freedom of information, I think the burden should be on the advocates of deletion to find research showing that such articles (or books) increase suicidal tendencies. Anecdotal evidence on either side of the arguments over that point (and it's probably the main point of contention in this debate) is meaningless. However, the people who have concerns about suicidal people reading the article as a how-to guide have valid concerns. The fact that there is an article about suicide methods but not about signs of suicidality DOES bother me. There should be an article about common symptoms displayed by people who are contemplating suicide. I'm sure there are myriad reliable sources for this information. I also agree that the article needs some cleaning up. Possibly a longer introduction is in order, and I think that adding something about the general uncertainty involved in nearly all methods of suicide would be good, and I'm sure it would, if anything, increase the chances of a suicidal reader's reconsideration. Look, we wouldn't be arguing about this if we didn't love wikipedia, and we would all weep if we heard about someone who killed themselves after reading this article, but I truly think that if a suicidal person is going through the trouble of research, they are crying for help. If they really wanted to get the job done, they could do it without the research I think. rgrizza 05:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per William Pietri somewhere up there. Markovich292 08:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But needs rewording. Dolive21 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although the topic is depressing, it is a well-researched and well-organized article. Mikeeilbacher 22:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This debate has been done to death already more than once. The article is encyclopaedic. GideonF 16:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nuff said.  ALKIVAR™ 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for allt the reasons Akradecki had stated. Encyclopedic, well referenced, well organized. Hopefully this will be the final AfD. Ðra 05:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT EVIL. Herostratus 08:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Reasoning follows. Suicide is a documented phenomenon. It is certainly encyclopedic. People commit suicide in various ways. These ways have major differences. These differences, and hence the ways, are encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not censored. Perhaps somebody will commit suicide after reading this page. That's extremely unfortunate and tragic. However, I'm sure that recent Canadian shooter read information on the Columbine tragedy (whether here or elsewhere)... The fact that these things happen does not mean that we should delete information about them. If someone is going to commit suicide, they will find a way to do it, whether there's a WP article on it or not. --Storkk 17:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If Wikipedia were being written in medieval Japan, an article on Seppuku methods would be an absolute requirement. Anville 18:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing has changed since my original comment made almost one year ago. Yamaguchi先生 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sourced and encyclopedic. No need to moralise, welcome to the Internet. bbx 03:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is quite a difficult issue, one which I believe strikes on some of the flaws inherent to Wikipedia. Is NPOV actually a POV? Isn't "evil" POV? Is it possible to keep an article such as this sane when subject to the attention of two polarized viewpoints? All things considered, I believe this could be a valid entry if handled carefully. Namely, a set of special guidelines in the talk page detailing how to contribute to the article, elimination of unreferenced material, and a compromise with the "suicide is bad" viewpoint by linking to suicide prevention in the "see also" section (it is relevant, after all). A warning at the top stating that the dangers would be acceptable, so long as it were delicately worded ("If you are considering suicide, seek help now" is not delicate). As for being a manual, you could argue that ricin details how to make lethal poison or marijuana how to maximize drug yields. Any good source of knowledge can be used to carry out an act; otherwise it is useless trivia. If we toss this out on that basis, perhaps we should toss out all of the chemistry articles while we're at it? ~ Eidako 12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article provides information and would be extremely useful to someone doing research on the phenomenon of suicide. Although it may be somewhat useful to someone wanting to commit suicide (though there are hundreds of sites on the internet that provide much more detailed information e.g. alt.suicide.holiday FAQ), in actuality this information may equally likely discourage someone from attempting suicide. Additionally, as the person who added the radial and ulnar artery information to the slitting wrists section [1], I further would like to make the point that condemning suicide is itself POV. There are some people out there who actually consider suicide as a proper way to end suffering (I am not one of them), and by imposing one's own (arbitrary) morals that suicide is wrong, aren't we being close-minded and ultimately one-sided? Wikipedia brown 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text

Recomendations with reply comments[edit]

• Keep Encyclopedic, well referenced, well organized. Not a manual, as alleged, but a valid reference work. Suicide is a real social phenomenon, and NPOV documentation of the various methods is a legitimate subject for an article here. Akradecki 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We don't have a Murder Methods article, now, do we? Nor does NPOV require one. An article devoted to the methods by which a tragedy may be brought about has no place in any encyclopedia. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although I do understand the reasons for nomination, Wikipedia is not censored.--Húsönd 17:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consensus self restraint by the wiki community acting responsibly is not censorship. We do not show images of violent pornography. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a great deal of censorship on Wikipedia everyday. See Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion/Archive 2 where there is discussion of many images which have been deleted on grounds of obscenity. Encouragement and enabling for depressed people to commit suicide goes beyond what Kevorkian went to prison for, and is more obscene and less "encyclopedic" than any image of body parts or sex acts.Edison 14:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I suppose one could make the morality argument, but when it comes down to it, the article is listcruft. The way the information is organized is unencyclopaedic, and all of it is contained in suicide and related articles. Mystache 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of this is really true though. The organisation is reasonable - guidelines like WP:SUMMARY and WP:LIST can explain why organisation of topics is done like this. WilyD 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I misspoke. A better way of explaining my vote is that the article seems to be a POV forkMystache 19:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you got some evidence to support this? The suicide article is already 38Kb, which is fairly large, this seems like a "natural" spin-out topic. WilyD 21:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Wikipedia, she ain't censored et cetera. Anyone who a) wants to kill themselves, and b) has access to the internet isn't going to find the lack of a Wikipedia article on the subject any sort of barrier. WilyD 17:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is an increasingly universal and well respected resource. This article is more likely than most to come to the attention of people contemplating suicide. It will help them to succeed. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I understand the moral rationale for wanting this article deleted, but as stated unanimously in the previous 1st and 2nd AfDs, this is a valid encyclopedic article. People who want to die can easily find the appropriate manual elsewhere on the Internet. There is nothing here that a suicidal person will not find out anyway. What this article needs is to explain that suicide almost always fails (except in the USA where guns are usually available for civilians), and that whether one succeeds or not, the aftermath is gruesome (for oneself if one fails, which is likely, and always for others). Anyway (even though this article is not a manual), suicidal people have the right to information too, so that if they want to take their lives they can do it properly.--Ezeu 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When caveats such as those you mention are inserted, they are removed by other editors as non NPOV. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, bad faith nom by new "editor." This is an established and well-developed article. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assume good faith. You state no basis for attributing bad faith to the editor. Nor should we disrespect an editor simply because she is new. This article is nominated regularly because many people share her concerns. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete only because it's kinda crufty (and perhaps original research) and parcel out the bits to either suicide or specific articles (hanging etc.); nothing Ezeu says can't apply just as well to the suicide article. That said, I don't really agree with the nominator's reasoning. If some Fredric Wertham type comes along and claims that Wikipedia is causing all sorts of horrible things to happen, whoever does PR for the Wikimedia Foundation can presumably take care of it. Wikipedia is not a public good; it's an encyclopedia.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternately, since it seems suicide is long already, take out the original research and rename to list of suicide methods, which is what it is.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Struck delete argument; see below.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a manual for committing violent felonies. Likewise there should not be an article on how to murder people or how to rape children.Edison 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy. This article is not a "how to commit suicide" manual, but merely a presentation of the different methods. --Ezeu 22:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some have claimed this is not a "How to commit suicide manual." Then is it acceptable to immediately delete any text in the article which in fact does encourage suicide, or provide info on the lethal dose of particular pain killers, or in other ways act as a suicide manual? And the claim is made that "There is no censorship in Wikipedia, but there obviously is. Jimbo Wales has deleted personal articles on several individuals under threat of libel suits, which is censorship. There is no article telling how to murder people, or how to kidnap and molest children, or how to build and trigger IEDs, or how to poison the food supply. If this vile article is kept, it needs cleanup: statements which are OR or lacking verifiable sources should be deleted, along with anything constituting a "How To" manual, such as lethal doses of common substances, or anything constituting "Helpful Hints" which have the POV that suicide is good.Edison 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Information on lethal doses is purely encyclopedic and in no way encourages suicide. The real reason it should not be included in this article is because it is better included in the articles about the drugs in question.4hodmt 13:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nomination seems well meant, but not in line with Wikipedia's approach. Other issues raised are interesting, but seem only to merit cleanup, not deletion. William Pietri 23:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cleanup has never worked on this long-running sore of an article because the article title itself - Suicide Methods - naturally draws it into being a "how to" manual, however often it is asserted that that is not what it should be. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It could use a little bit of cleanup, but it is a rather encyclopedic topic- a verifiable social phenomenon that spans pretty much every culture. It could be expanded to present statistics and history of methods though. Unfortunately, being tragic doesn't merit deletion. --Wafulz 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suicide is an encyclopedic topic. Suicide methods are not. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is in pretty bad taste guys. I fail to see how descriptions of how suicides occur can be considered encylopaedic. Sure, this information is usefull if you are suicidal but wouldn't it be better to leave a stub that says "If you are suicidal, check out www.beyondblue.com.au, and remember that no problems are worth dying for". User:Wik98

Comment "no problems are worth dying for" is POV. This article already links to suicide prevention articles.4hodmt 14:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Since when is Wikipedia the morality police? Let's remove all articles on rape next, then pedophilia, then murder, then racism, etc. We have to protect the world from itself, after all, right? Someone might be JUST on the edge of molesting a child, they'll read a Wikipedia article and it'll happen, just like that. Our hands will be red with blood. Please. Get a grip on reality people. If a person is killing themselves there are bigger things in the picture than a Wikipedia article. But wait, maybe someone will read my comment here and be so enraged that they'll kill themselves? I'd better not post it. --Rankler 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSure there are articles on murder and rape but where is the "List of Ways To Murder Someone" or the "Helpful Hints for Raping?" There is a separate article on Suicide, and that is quite enough without this listcruft how-to manual.Edison 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete If someone kills themselves as a result of something they read on the Internet, one has to question their sanity in the first place. People predisposed to suicide will find other sources of information anyway. This entry is encyclopedic. It should be edited around a bit so make it seem less approving (obviously without going into POV, so by adding sources); but if we start here, next we'll start deleting other content on Wikipedia. Plus, people have a right to live their own life. They also should have the right to end it. You would rather lock someone up where they would remain in despair and mental anguish for the rest of their lives, rather than allow them the mercy of ending it all.
  
  Then again, by including this article, those predisposed to suicide will trigger their suicide in this manner. Therefore it makes sense that leaving this article (which seems to be quite recent) could in fact trigger suicide in a depressed person. People should have the right to make up their own minds, and not have us make them up for them, but at the same time some people are not capable of making rational desicions that they once would have made. This makes this article tricky to delete or keep. There are pros and cons either way. However, in the end, does anyone want to read the headline, "Teen Suicide Over Wikipedia Entry"? Because I sure wouldn't, and if I contributed to that article I'd feel like I contributed to that person's death. This is the only reason why I pick delete. I must admit in my weaker moments I (or others) might be tempted to read this article and follow its 'advice' and this is why I think it should be removed. Ezeu's points above still stand, though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychade (talk • contribs) 15:11, 13 September 2006.

Yeah, and let's get rid of Kurt Cobain, Marilyn Monroe, and The Sorrows of Young Werther while we're at it.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - This website does not just list methods, it describes ways to make attempts more successful. It is not impartial, it makes suicide sound acceptable. It links to a page that describes in great detail the best ways to make attempts successful, and deters against methods that have a low success rate. Many people who look up information on suicide are doing it because they're depressed. How can anyone support a page that serves no other purpose than to prey on vulnerable people. Treeny

Note: The above vote is Treeny's first edit on Wikipedia. Prolog 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep There has been no substantial reason given for delete. There has been many for clean up but as it has already been said by many users above, this is not the place for clean up. The notion that some one may read it and because of the article commit suicide is pure conjuncture. It's like arguing that the article on Adjustable rate mortgage will make someone want to run out and refinance their home. If you want to apply the Wikipedia standards to that "delete reasoning" it screams WP:OR with no reliable sources showing a direct link between this Wikipedia article and causing teens or anyone else to commit suicide. Show us something that passes WP:V and you may have a case. The moral arguments fail WP:NPOV to boot. Again, there is no valid reason to delete. Agne 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, the Talk Page has regularly included edits from users saying they are grateful for it as an aid to successful suicide. So it is the notion that it does not increase the risk of any particular suicide which is conjecture. Chelseaboy 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And expand, it's all encyclopediac. Add wikilinks to all the methods, linking to articles related--people who used the method, historical anecdotes, etc. If this is offensive as a collection, would it be alright to have individual articles like Poisoning (suicide) instead...? I can see the reasoning behind deleting it from a given person's moral perspective but this is actually the framework of a very good article overall. Suicide has been a factor in human life since the human era began, and has played a critical role in life, politics, government, society, and the arts since we first stood up and walked upright. · XP · 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC) · XP · 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There already is an article about suicide. This debate is whether to have a separate article going into fine detail about methods. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  05:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. No encyclopedia in the world has ever included an article on "Suicide methods". "Suicide", of course - but "Suicide methods" absolutely not. The problem is in the title of the article, which attracts edits making it a "how to" manual inevitable, however much it may be cleaned up whenever it is regularly, and rightly, put up for deletion. This article should be deleted and whatever is encyclopedic about the contents (very little) can go into "Suicide". Another beef I have with this article is that the crusaders for it prevent edits which place at the top of the page prominent links and warnings to those who are contemplating suicide, directing them to reconsider and to help. One of my own several efforts in this regards is at 6 April 2003, I had many predecessors in this, who all failed against the regular editors, as I did. Instead, these resources are banished to the very bottom of an info box. This article is profoundly sick. If Wikipedia cannot show an erect penis, how can it justify an article which may be responsible for the loss of even one human life? Chelseaboy 09:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Re: erect penis comment. You obviously have not seen the Circumcision page. Wikipedia is not censored and for good reason. Second, the editors who removed the tagged are correct in that those tags interject POV. No matter which way you cut it, a persons view on suicide is a personal one. There is a reason why we don't arrest and try individuals who attempted to commit suicide and fail for a crime of attempted suicide. As for the link, if it fails WP:EL and is interjecting POV in it's own capacity, then it should be removed as well. 205.157.110.11 09:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it now! More to the point, deletion of a page which may cause death is not censorship, if it happens it will be by consensus or as a result of a policy decision. I agree that, whilst an article on "Suicide methods" exists, editors will always edit out exhortations against following the methods as non NPOV. That is why an article on "Suicide methods", as opposed to "Suicide", is misconceived, and no clean up ever works or sticks. On your arrest point, you are anonymous and so I don't know who "we" is - in fact, attempted suicide has been a crime in many countries for long periods, including the UK before the passage of the Suicide Act 1961. "Suicide methods", as opposed to "Suicide", is unencyclopedic, and I challenge you to identify such an article in any other encyclopedia (excluding, of course, Wikipedia mirror sites). Chelseaboy 10:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I was thinking of the Suicide Act 1961 when I was composing my thoughts and some of the logical arguments made for decriminalizing suicide. In regards to your contention that this page "may cause death". Should we then, on those grounds, delete thesky diving, swimming, driving, and Atkins Diet pages on the logic that after reading them you may act in such a way as to cause death? 205.157.110.11 11:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's not a manual. The topic is encyclopedic and can lead to a good article. Article needs to be improved, though. For instance, to cite sources so that it's clear it's not original research. --Abu Badali 00:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seems to be consensus above that the article is a manual. Also, the censorship issue has also been discussed above. Wikipedia does delete pages, and whether you like it or not, this is a form of censorship. Furthermore there seems to be some confusion between the encyclopaedic nature of suicide, and the uncylcopaedic nature of the article about suicide methods. We only wish to delete the suicide methods page. I am aware that some of the keep camp think that the article can be fixed, but I think it should be considered that this article has been nominated for deletion twice before. There was plenty of time to fix it up, but it wasn't. This page is immune to proper cleanup.Wik98 00:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is immune to proper cleanup Leaving aside the symantic problem with that sentance and what you're trying to say, and ignoring the "no-one's been bothered yet" argument, why is cleanup not possible? It is quite clearly possible in this case, with references and more counterpoints being what's needed. LinaMishima 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Line, I like what you are saying, but the problem as I see it is that the title of the article prevents this page from being anything other than a list of suicide methods. Over time, the edits will become more and more morbid, as editors wish to add more detail to each method. It seems impossible to prevent editors from adding the type of detail which turns an article like this into a How-to guide. Besides, Lina, what kind of references are being used right now? A suicide methods file that was constructed by anonymous users of a suicide newsgroup. It is hardly the most encyclopaedic of sources, is it? You may argue that in the future some smart fellow might do a search on pubmed for an acedemic suicide review, but I feel this is wishful thinking. In anycase, this article should be deleted on the basis of what it is now, not what it can be. Wik98 01:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The moral and legal objects are well meant and heartfelt. And obviously there may be rare cases where wikipedia needs to assert censorship. But this is not one them. For one, there are plenty of explicit articles on wikipedia dealing with topics that many users find morally objectionable and which may be illegal in any number of jurisdictions around the world, e.g. most of the articles dealing with sexuality in all its variations. One of the underlying principles of wikipedia is that transparancy is a good. Knowing more is good. Ohconfucius edits have helped the quality of the article. As he asserts, there is more work to be done. But in this kind of debate, it seems unfair that the bar is raised regarding standards of citation, prose, style etc to a level that I doubt some WP:FA would meet. Finally, regarding the morality issues. On any consequentialist account, we would have to factor in the benefit this article may provide to people who are concerned about love-ones who seem depressed. How often in post-suicide situations do family and friends lament that they did not recognize the danger signs. Jdclevenger 00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article for deletion is Suicide Methods, not suicide. I highly doubt in a consequentialist account that the family of a suicide victim would find anything on the Suicide Methods page that would have helped them prevent their loved one from killing themselves. After all this page only discusses ways that people kill themselves, not the signs that people display before they suicide. the suicide page is valuable for the reason you have raised, but the suicide methods page is not. Wik98 01:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It seems that this article is being nominated for deletion solely out of certain individuals' notions of propriety and morality (and this moral outlook is not shared by everyone: personally, I see no problem with suicide, and much less with an article on the ways in which people do it). There is no policy-based reason for this article to be deleted, and its topic is noteworthy. The article itself is well referenced, although it could do with a cleanup, particularly for language and style. However, the presence of the odd comma splice is obviously not why this discussion is occurring. The nominator writes about the article being "ethically bankrupt" and so forth: I think it is providing a worthwhile public service (and this doesn't really matter, since "ethical conduct" is no more what Wikipedia is about than performing public services). The article provides solid information on a phenomenon which is a part of life, and deleting the article will not remove suicide from society, so this whole fiasco is a pointless waste of bandwidth. Wikipedia doesn't exist to save people from their own actions, it exists to provide them with information. So the article must stay. Byrgenwulf 09:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question isn't whether deleting the article will remove suicide from society. The question is (1) whether retaining the article is likely to increase the number of successful suicides (I think yes) and (2) whether the article is encyclopedic (I think no). Your vote seems confused: on the one hand you say the article is "providing a worthwhile public service", implying your answer to (1) would be yes, and on the other hand you imply deletion would make no difference, suggesting your answer to (1) would be no. Chelseaboy 14:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously, now. Whether or not this article could increase the rate of successful suicides is a moot point, one which would require proper empirical evidence to evaluate (not shrill, moralising do-gooder rants). However, providing information on the various methods by which people successfully kill themselves is indeed a public service (for a variety of reasons), although whether or not the article existed, people would continue to commit suicide effectively, as they have done for millenia. But since Wikipedia, last time I checked, is apparently not here for the "public good", it really doesn't matter, one way or another. The point is that there is no policy-related reason why this article should go, and "ethical" arguments are too subjective to hold water. Byrgenwulf 15:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Easy guys. I think this highlights something essential to this debate. Chelseaboy and others are arguing for deletion based on the premise that suicide is a bad thing. I agree with Chelseaboy about this, in most cases -- definitely if some depressed teenager happened upon this article and committed suicide because of reading it, I think that would be a terrible thing. I think most people would, and I think that Byrgenwulf's stance on the issue is pretty radical, but the fact that he and others have expressed their opinions on this side of the fence (Byrgenwulf said, "I see no problem with suicide") is illuminating. There are multiple points of view on this: most people, I think, believe that most suicide is bad (obviously there are exceptions involving the terminally ill, etc., but that is beside the point), however another point of view that many people seem to hold is that suicide is a person's right. Wikipedia has pretty clear NPOV standards when it comes to this sort of thing, and that's why I still think the article should be KEPT. I'm going to anticipate a slippery slope rebutal here: but what about people whose point of view is that murder is not so bad? Do we have to respect any point of view, no matter how radical? I don't think so. I think that if actual well-meaning individuals espouse a point of view and express it eloquently, as the right-to-suicide people have (and I know they mean well as we all do in this debate), then that point of view should be respected. Thus, a deletion based on the premise that suicide is bad would be a violation of NPOV. Also, I think it's exactly this type of article that is the reason why WP:NOT EVIL has not been adopted as an official policy.Rgrizza 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isolated Comments[edit]

• Comment: the article is rather lousy. It concentrates on the final act of slitting one's wrist and omits: (1) statistics on "popularity" of these methods, (2) methods used historically - it concentrates on current society with car exhausts and plastics bags, (3) ignores the preparation stage (or lack of thereof), (4) misses any references to criminology or sociology studies. The text is just rewritten "methods file". If kept it should be labeled as a stub. Pavel Vozenilek 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would suggest a label of "Start" it is too large to be a stub. NeoFreak 21:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

It seems that proposing the deletion of this page has been far more controversial than I thought it would be. Some of the arguments raised in support of keeping this page are reasonable. Others aren't. It is true that other webpages on the internet will describe the various methods by which people can die even if this wikipedia article is deleted. This article certainly doesn't glamorise suicide and it does portray a verifiable social phenomenon that spans pretty much every culture.

However, this article does provide specific details on how people may end their life, and this can't be ignored. While it is true that wikipedia shouldn't be censored, it often is. There is some information that you can't find in this encyclopaedia, like "tips for how to rape children", and "how to use molecular biology techniques to modify bacterial pathogens and create a new plague". These articles don't exist because they are offensive and dangerous even though some users may find them interesting.

When the quality of this encyclopaedia is threatened, wikipedia users respond by deleting pages. Even though this page about suicide methods documents a verifiable social phenomenon, and it doesn't glamorise suicide, and even ignoring ethical concerns, the quality of this article is so poor that it must be deleted on grounds of quality alone.

This article is listcruff. It merely presents a list of suicide methods which has been taken from a website that appears to be original research. The references they provide aren't from medical journals, government agencies or newspapers. Rather, they have been built from suicide newsgroups. This is not encyclopaedic at all. It's pseudo research.

Although not unanimous, there appears to be consensus that this article is basically a suicide manual. As Nydas wrote, "This is a how-to guide. Much of the text is given over to 'common pitfalls' of suicide methods". Wikipedia is not meant to be a manual, and especially not a poorly written one.

While I concede that this article is interesting in a visceral sense, this is not enough to save it from deletion. I tried to avoid using the morality argument, but given the comment below by a depressed teenager, I am forced to bring it up.

Someone wrote that "This article is helpful, and shouldn't be deleted just because it provides accurate and specific details on how people may end their life. If people really wanted to end their lives the information to do so can be found just as easily from many other sources. And all of this is the opinion of I, a depressed, but not suicidal, teenager. Thank You"

People don't start out suicidal. It begins with depression, and develops as the depression gets worse. This teenager admits depression, and has decided to look up suicide in wikipedia. Doesn't this indicate suicidal thoughts? My fellow wikipedians, we have to protect young people from themselves. Let's not prostitute our values for poor quality articles. Katie32 (talk • contribs)

• Comment A lot of people on both sides seem to be missing the point. Neither "this teaches people how to kill themselves" nor "this discourages people from killing themselves" is pertinent reasoning. There are, as I understand it, three bedrock content policies for inclusion, and none of them is whether the information is good or not. On the other hand, one of them is NPOV, and removing an article entirely because you don't like it is highly POV.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. People are claiming we should "ignore all rules" (e.g. NPOV) in favour of deleting this on moral grounds. If the discussion here is sidestepping normal deletion issues, it's specifically because people are claiming that we ought to ignore them in this case. It's hard to rationalise not ignoring the rules if you don't address the reasons behind why we should, according to some, ignore them here. --Rankler 14:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Since I seem to be the only person who said delete other than on moral grounds, and then I modified that position, I may as well strike the earlier delete notation.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is clearly a highly contentious and controversial article, with the possibility of doing serious harm to Wikipedia (in the manner suggested by Psychade). Can I suggest that rather than leave the decision to an admin, it is taken to the Arbitration Committee to decide. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  19:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arbcom doesn't usually involve itself in content disputes (actually, I don't think they ever have).--Kchase T 20:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The article has now been rewritten in a more encyclopaedic fashion It could still do with some work, but I am now changing my vote to keep. Ohconfucius 08:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is hardly enclyopaedic, even with your 'edits'. My vote is still delete.Wik98 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is assisted suicide legal in Florida? I ask because Wikipedia is not meant to show material that is illegal in Florida, as the wikipedia servers are physically located in Florida Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer. I disagree with User:Throw that the article is well researched and encylopaedic. Almost the entire article is stolen from http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/~ingvar/methods/other.html word for word. This isn't research, it's plagiarism and possibly a copyright violation.Wik98 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article isn't doing anything remotely close to "assisting suicide". To actually assist suicide you have to, you know ... assist in it. Not just write an encyclopedia article on it. I don't think Florida law can be interpreted so broadly as to suggest that merely writing about suicide is illegal. In America we have a thing called free speech ... Cyde Weys 01:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While free speech is a wonderful right to have you must remember American law doesn't apply to Wikipedia. Wikipedia sets and follows its own rules that apply worldwide. Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales' home, and he allows us to put our feet on his coffee table and raid his refrigerator....as long as we follow his rules. Throw 01:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as having Internet is legal in Florida, everything is strictly under the law here I believe. Besides, writing an encyclopedical article about something that is illegal in Florida isn't an illegal act by itself. See U.S._Constitution#First_Amendment.--Húsönd 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm from Australia, and we don't have a bill of rights. Some dude was put in jail for using a loudspeaker to talk randomly at a shopping mall. This violated a local council bylaw, and he tried to argue that free speech was guaranteed, but the high court found it wasn't. . While the U.S. has a bill of rights, and Free speech is more protected, it isn't that protected. I believe that you are not free to talk with others about commiting a terrorist act. Libel laws mean you are also probably not free to say something about someone else which isn't true. Likewise, it is possible that talking to a suicidal aquaintance about the best methods for commiting suicide would be illegal in a state that outlawed assisted suicide, even if this conversation only took part on wikipedia. Wik98 01:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article in question is not advocating or protesting suicide in any way. What is it doing is making a list of methods of suicide that can and have been used. Any indication in the article where it tries to hint at best methods would be a NPOV violation and should be editted, but this article should not be deleted. Throw 01:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article compares suicide methods, and also provides links to pages like http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/~ingvar/methods/other.html which do an even more thourough job. The best methods would still be obvious even if it were written in NPOV format. This article should be deleted precisely because it is impossible to compare suicide methods without implying that some methods are better than others. And besides, this article is not at all encylopaedic. It has no historial context, andmost of the information it has is copied directly from suidice method websites.Wik98 02:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The debate about suicide is not neutral. It is loaded by statistics which show that young people across all cultures are more likely than any other group to attempt ending their lives. Your idea that those who wish to commit suicide should be given the resources to do it out of humanitarian respect is so obtuse as to be obsene. I am saddened to hear of your own battle with suicidal thoughts, yet I do not see your experience as common. People who are suicidal tend to be aware of the grissliness of suicide. Articles like these are more likely to educate them about the methods to use which work. Ie, If I were suicidal, I would find that hanging is a surer bet than slitting my wrists, and I did not know this before viewing this page. But I was aware that both methods were grissly before I came here.Wik98 12:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIt's not like there hasn't been enough time to clean this article up. It has been nominated twice before. The problem, as Chelseaboy noted, is that you can't clean up a page that is named suicide methods. The very name attracts the kind of edits that turn the page into a "how to" suicide manual.203.214.35.136 12:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:WWIN"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:" "Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals,... and recipes." So when this article venture into "How To Commit Suicide," as it clearly does, it violates official Wikipedia policy. It is "unencyclopedic" to provide a forum for people to encourage other people to commit suicide.Edison 13:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC
• Comment The question keeps coming up of whether there is a substantial risk that the page could lead to a death that would not otherwise have happened. We're pretty much doing guesswork about that, and I think some expert opinions would be very helpful here. Here is a passage from the American Association of Suicidology "Media Guidelines for Reporting on Suicide": Exposure to suicide method through media reports can encourage vulnerable individuals to imitate it. Clinicians believe the danger is even greater if there is a detailed description of the method. Research indicates that detailed descriptions or pictures of the location or site of a suicide encourage imitation. [2]. I'm going to send the Association an email asking specifically for their opinion on how to improve this article and whether they have comments on the deletion debate. I will post all correspondence on the Talk page of this AfD. Kla'quot ^Sound 03:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply please make it clear to them that you are asking for improvements, rather than a general opinion. If they do provide such material, it would be better to place their advice on the talk page of the article as a formal external peer review. I suspect they will say much the same as myself - add references, include proper context, and add the downpoints. LinaMishima 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes to both :). Kla'quot ^Sound 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal[edit]

Compromise proposal A compromise would be, if the article is kept, at least to allow prominent reference to resources which might help people to deal with their situation without killing themselves. You could regard this either as a balance between NPOV and WP:NOT EVIL or, indeed, as truly neutral point of view in that methods would still be set out (the how-to manual if you will) but the alternative point of view, that there are other approaches open to the potential suicide which deserve consideration, would also be given due prominence. Chelseaboy 17:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I still think that is interjecting POV. As another editor noted, there have been times in civilized society that suicide was considered honorable. There are a variety of reasons for a person to consider taking there own life. In my personal opinion, the vast, vast majority of them are poor reasons but again that is just my personal view. Ultimately, it comes down to each and every individual to make up their own assessment of the matter. It's not a matter of WP:NOT EVIL at all. It is not Wikipedia's role to legislate through our editting any particular view or sense of morality on a subject. To paraphrase another editor in the Hitler article, we don't have to say that things like rape and child molestation is bad because if we write the article in an impassioned, NPOV view the evident facts will shine through. It my opinion that if we maintain NPOV with this article, the same is true. 205.157.110.11 11:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed with IP. Also, NPOV is a long-standing policy. NOT EVIL is an essay.--Kchase T 15:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still not quite sure where I fall on this issue, but one possible point of compromise is in see also material and in-text references. I think presenting a fair view on suicide has to include material on risks, consequences, suicide hotlines, the extent to which suicidal urges are a treatable medical condition, and so on. Questions of morality aside, I think we all agree that NPOV requires us to be sure that readers come away with a fair picture of the topics we present. William Pietri 15:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Eidako above (in the recomendation area) added the thought about linking suicide prevention in the See Also section. I think that would appropriate but putting a "warning" on top would be WAAAAAY too POV. Another idea would be to make sure that each method has a clear negative comment on what the physical "affect" on the body are with a failed attempt or other potential problems (like with "Driving"). Some already have these (like "Electrocution" & "Asphyxiation"). It's vital to NPOV to neither glamorize suicide nor to moralize about it being wrong. Agne 16:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to note my agreement with the IP editor and Kchase02, with emphasis upon the difference between the NPOV policy and the NOT EVIL opinion statement. Anville 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Once this nomination for deletion is defeated, is there a way the article could be protected from future nomination? The repeated attempts to remove it on non-policy grounds can be considered disruptive, per WP:DP.GideonF 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a nutshell no. Whispering^(talk/c) 00:45, 20 September 2006 (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.