Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (6th nomination) - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JustGettingItRight (talk | contribs) at 17:10, 29 April 2009 (Revert vandalism and wikiharrassment by Sceptre). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:10, 29 April 2009 by JustGettingItRight (talk | contribs) (Revert vandalism and wikiharrassment by Sceptre)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)
Categories: