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 no consensus. The principal issue is whether this is an overbroad list (WP:SALAT) or not, with some additional OR/sourcing concerns (though these do not seem insurmountable if one considers the works of fiction themselves adequate primary sources for the purposes of this list). A rough headcount shows that about 10 people consider it overbroad, while about 6½ (counting a week keep as half an opinion) do not. Since SALAT is essentially a stylistic issue, and de gustibus non est disputandum, I can't resort to policy to determine whose arguments should be given more weight. That means we don't have consensus for deletion, though if the article is not improved a second AfD might well achieve that result. Sandstein 05:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides in fiction[edit]

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

Unnotable list primarily consisting of WP:OR and random personal interpretations; fails WP:N and WP:NOT as it is a wholly indiscriminate list. Failed prod; prod removed by User:Cyfal with explanation of: "This article was proposed for deletion. I object the deletion for following reasons: First, I don't think it is OR because for fictional works, one can always read the book, watch the movie or whatever, thus the entries in the article are sourced. Then, this article was split from the article list of suicides, which was already nominated for for deletion, but the result was keep. However, a nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion nevertheless might be appropriate to discuss this more?" However, I disagree that except in a few specific instances, you cannot simply review the fictional work to determine what is or is not "suicide" unless it is explicitly stated - while list does not actually limit itself to true suicide, but also includes "attempted suicides", apparently "assisted" and "self-sacrifice" and other very broad interpretations of "suicide"; an article on the fictional treatment of the topic would be notable and appropriate, but a indiscriminate and unlikely to ever be completed random list of names and works is not. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still vote for keep. Concerning the WP:OR: I've checked the (few) cases where I did know the fictional works myself, these cases were undebatably suicide except one (Thelma & Louise). Although I must admit that in case of these tons of mangas and animes which I don't know the distinction might be more difficult. Nevertheless, I don't think this is a reason for deleting the whole article. Concerning WP:N and WP:NOT: I think only entries where the fictional work has a wikipedia article should be allowed, I think this then is enough notability. If one disagrees, one could also introduce as rule of thumb that the person who committed suicide itself must have it's own article, otherwise it shoud be deleted from this list. --Cyfal (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That speaks to the notability of the individual entries works, but not to the notability of the topic or why such a list is useful and valuable. And, being familiar with those manga and anime series, I can tell you almost all are not suicide by any real definition. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the notability of the list itself, Pharmboy on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicides describes also my opinion, therefore I just cite him: "[T]he list isn't indescriminate, it is informational, it is limited in scope to notable persons, and makes for a reasonable starting place to research suicide. It offers more than a category does, with brief info on who they are, is wikified nicely (demonstrating they are notable). And it is well organized, allows for possible suicides, well thought out, and the wikified nature makes it self sourcing. Its a dark subject matter and has a certain amount of ICKY factor to it, but that doesn't matter." --Cyfal (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is for people with real-world notability, and appears to have nothing to do with this list, which is not limited in scope, not well organized, not well thought out, or anything else. Its basically a cast off to fix up the original, that was split rather than just excised. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm more or less responsible for splitting this material from List of suicides way back when. I thought it was an indiscriminate collection of information then, and it doesn't appear to have improved much since. However, if there are editors willing to work to improve the list, they should be given a chance. I have no objection to deleting this if the improvement doesn't happen, however. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -This article can never meet a standard to be considered encyclopedic. It's subject can be discussed in other articles such as Tragedy. The list goes from Shakespear to Television and is far to wide a scope for an article. Horribly long list article. No encyclopedic value.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Under a combination of WP:IINFO, ~~WP:DIR~~ WP:NOTDIR, and WP:V as well as failing WP:SALAT with an overly broad scope with little to no encyclopedic value. —Farix (t | c) 00:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so much OR, so much indiscriminate information, so little parameters. Shakespeare to Anime is far too wide a net to mean anything. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list of no encyclopedic value. Doceirias (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic doesn't seem inherently non-notable. This list has no where near enough references, but this seems like an appropriate topic for a list article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While this is a list of random names it does have potental if book/manga cites can be used and it is intresting. Im currently split on the issue. - Knowledgekid87 7:21, 18 September 2009 (AT)

This is not an RfA, either you think the article should be deleted, or you think it should be kept, and if it is kept then you think it should be kept as it is or merged with another more relevant article and this redirected to it. If you have no opinion either way then why vote? Why not just change the title to comment, because that is all you are adding, a comment. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is just so awful that having it around tarnishes the good name of Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contra the previous commenter's hyperbolic rhetoric, this is not awful. Nor is it inherently an unencuyclopedic subject: how suicide is treated in fiction, including how it is depicted in different times and cultures, is a subject of academic study. As such, it's a suitable topic for a list of fictional suicides. Is this a good list? Gods no -- needs sourcing and cleanup (I am dubious myself about including anything but successful suicides) and balancing to avoid bias, but all of those are editorial decisions outside the scope of AfD. Keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Honestly, he biggest issue with this article is that's it's so broad and impossible to maintain. Maybe if it were several articles like "List of suicides in film/novels/comics/anime/etc" it would be more passable. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then consider it a comment ffs. Either way, acknowledge that this pointless little chime-in is infinitely less constructive than anything I said. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as yet another indiscriminate list. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list itself is beyond indiscriminate (is it really necessary to note suicides in a show like South Park, where there's virtually no continuity between episodes? and I lost count of how many entries were actually "I'm gonna sacrifice myself so you can all get outta here alive!"). The topic certainly may be notable for discussion in an encyclopedic setting, but I question whether keeping it in its current form will really encourage the cleanup and refocus necessary for that. In this case, then, I think what's needed is a clean slate - delete the current list, and recreate an article without the list under a more appropriate title, focusing on the topic. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. This element of storylines, a meme of sorts, is widely used and discussed. It's worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that doesn't address the problems with WP:IINFO and the fact that it is a list of loosely associated trivia and violates WP:NOTDIR Point 1. —Farix (t | c) 16:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defer to see if it can be made acceptable then either Keep or Merge with List of suicides. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely oppose merging this back to List of suicides. It was split off for good reasons, and the consensus on that article is likely to favor keeping it gone. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, strike ~~Merge~~ and replace with Delete. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and no use merging back into a larger list. Certainly this isnt OR. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is yet another indiscriminate list, with a thin criteria that fails WP:SALAT. I don't think there's any way to get a strict criteria of inclusion that wouldn't make this list both discriminate and encyclopedic. Subdivisions might be acceptable, such as a list of suicides in Shakespearian literature. Them From Space 17:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of suicides in notable fiction might be a better choice. If the fiction was notable, then this aspect is important to note. Its a valid content fork, since it is a long enough list to warrant its own article. If it was short, then it'd be fine back with the original, the way fictional orphans are stuck with real life famous ones at List_of_orphans_and_foundlings#Literary.2Ffictional Dream Focus 01:44, 25 September 2009 (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.