Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (6th nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:17, 29 April 2009 editSceptre (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors79,170 edits Undid revision 286881516 by JustGettingItRight (talk); go to DRV if you want it re-opened← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:03, 6 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(9 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->


The result was '''Speedy Keep per ].''' The consensus is that the deletion rationale is not based in ] and that prior consensus (clearly evidenced in earlier AfDs) has not changed. ]<sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 18:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The result was '''speedy keep'''; no new arguments are offered in this sixth debate. ''Pace'' the nomination, Misplaced Pages is still not censored, and the content and medical disclaimers still apply. While I really do understand the reasons for the nomination, the community, and indeed myself, would not want it deleted because of what it ''may'' do. When we have a verifiable case of suicide by Misplaced Pages, it would be a good time for the community to reconsider it, but I think the OFFICE would probably do that before the community does. (]) ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 14:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
{{ns:0|S}}
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide methods}}</ul></div> <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide methods}}</ul></div>
:{{la|Suicide methods}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Suicide methods}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
Line 24: Line 22:


* '''Strong keep'''. I do not accept that "lives are at stake here" - i.e. remove this article or people will die - a few moments playing with Google shows that information on suicide methods is widely available on the Internet. Anyone feeling suicidal will simply look elsewhere. In any case the article is not a manual. ] (]) 13:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC) * '''Strong keep'''. I do not accept that "lives are at stake here" - i.e. remove this article or people will die - a few moments playing with Google shows that information on suicide methods is widely available on the Internet. Anyone feeling suicidal will simply look elsewhere. In any case the article is not a manual. ] (]) 13:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
⚫ :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>


⚫ :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 09:03, 6 February 2022

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 Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. The consensus is that the deletion rationale is not based in policy and that prior consensus (clearly evidenced in earlier AfDs) has not changed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Suicide methods

AfDs for this article:
Suicide methods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I get the anti censorship and anti disclaimer arguments, but lives are at stake here. Some of you may not care about this, but depressed people can and do use Misplaced Pages to learn about methods on how to commit suicide, including a suicidal member in my immediate family. With what we have seen in the media about the copycat effect for people committing suicide, TIME magazine, we should either delete this article or put a disclaimer on this article alone per WP:IAR. This is not a typical censorship case and I urge Wikipedians to understand the practical effect of having this article without any sort of prominent help hotline at the top of this article. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


  • Strong keep - This is the 6th nomination now and no actual new argument for deletion is presented. Anti-censorship and anti-disclaimer aren't simply "arguments" but wikipedia policy. You can't just use WP:IAR as a way to backdoor WP:JDLI. DSZ (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has content problems with respect to its scope--it is more like a general list of ways to die. It's also possible that any encyclopedic discussion of such methods can be merged to suicide. However, these are editing issues and not deletion issues. Nominator's rationale seems to be based entirely on emotion, which despite his claims to the contrary, makes this a very typical censorship case, and on that issue I see no reason to defy established guidelines. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • KEEP It is not a 'how-to' just an article listing the most common types of suicide, and is presented in a way that is neutral. To delete it simply because it covers a sensitive topic would simply be censorship. We must keep it as per WP:NOTCENSORED Trevor Marron (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I do not accept that "lives are at stake here" - i.e. remove this article or people will die - a few moments playing with Google shows that information on suicide methods is widely available on the Internet. Anyone feeling suicidal will simply look elsewhere. In any case the article is not a manual. Jll (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
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.