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 of the debate was Delete. This was a tough one to close, and the decision was hard to make. I read every comment and !vote here in detail and weighed all the arguments. There was much more of a consensus to delete this article than to keep it, and the arguments to delete were more convincing than the ones to keep it. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is, at its heart, an indiscriminate list of information. There are no connections between any of these crimes, no research has been done about crimes specifically on these campuses, and, lacking sources, even making a statement like "crimes periodically occur on Ivy-League campuses" is original research. This is about as useful an article as, say, Pastries sold in Ivy-League dining halls, except that, because it's about crime, it's more sensational, which is why I imagine it's stayed around as long as it has. Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information that aspires to be original reseach. JDoorjam Talk 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as it stands, as original research. However, the topic of "Ivy League suicide" can probably be better substantiated by cited sources, as something that gets a peculiar brand of media attention at least from time to time. An actual article on this topic would, to me, justify retaining the list of crimes, as it would no longer seem like an arbitrary collection of facts. If better substantiation of the topic as encyclopedic is provided, I'd consider the article rescued from AfD-worthiness. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This does not look like original research in the WP:NOR sense--every statement cites an external, verifiable reference to a news story or similar source. If that's "original research" then isn't everything else in Wikipedia too? OTOH, it nothing more than a list of said entries, but lists-of-things pages aren't by their nature prohibited on Wikipedia. The page seems to need some editing to fit the WP list-page standards and/or some text to explain why this material is interesting or documented here or whatever (but it's already tagged as needing work in that direction). The only AfD issue is whether it's just an indiscriminant collection of facts, an issue only recently brought up on its Talk page and via the addition of ((importance)) and ((globalize)) tags. At worst, the proposal to merge into Ivy League should be an alternative to simple Delete. DMacks 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NOR requires more than mere source citations, which this article provides. As I said on the article's Talk page, it appears to be an original (novel, idiosyncratic, unsupported) synthesis of existing facts. My concern is that nothing has been done to establish "violent crime and suicide in the Ivy League" as a topic as non-original research. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Crime and suicide are not original topics of research. Nor even crime and suicide at universities. Even so, I don't think there's a need to establish the topic of an article as non-original; just the content itself. I doubt List of fictional characters missing an appendage or List of fictional worms were "non-original" topics when they were created either.-Bindingtheory 19:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment DMacks makes a fine case (although I'd likely disagree with him as to whether the topic is sufficiently notable as to merit an article, and, concomitantly, to whether it is, by its nature, an indiscrimate collection of information or otherwise exorbitantly crufty), but it should be said that WP:LIST, even as it commands the support of most editors, is a guideline and not policy, such that there are some (amongst which number I generally count myself) who comport their editing with the guideline but feel free, at AfD and the like, to support the deletion of lists that conform to WP:LIST (for various reasons, typically that lists aren't the best way to disseminate information encyclopedically). Joe 18:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Besides, my alma mater, MIT, has lots of suicides! And much better suicides than Harvard has! Why shouldn't it be included? If the truth were known, MIT is just as good if not better than the Ivy League schools. Well, I mean just as bad if not worse then them. Well, not that violent crime and suicide are necessarily bad, they're just neutral facts, right? Oh, dear me, this is so confusing... (Do I need an image:ironyalert.gif here?) Dpbsmith (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This page is no different than a list of famous alumni of a given university or members of an organization (except that every fact on the crime/suicide page actually has a cited source, whereas the alumni pages generally give no sources whatsoever, and would therefore be justifiably deleted). (see List of University of Pennsylvania people of List_of_Cornell_University_people for examples.)

I can't find anything on this page that constitutes original research. There is no synthesis of new information here. No conclusions are being drawn. It simply chronicles crimes and suicides of the Ivy League, all of which have been previously published in reputable sources. You need to be more specific about this page containing original research if you really think it's happening.

The article is also not a list of indiscriminate information. It is a list of violent crimes and suicides of the Ivy League schools. It is no more indiscriminate than a List of unrelated songs with identical titles or a List of people who became famous through being terminally ill or a list of Nobel Prize laureates by university affiliation.

The reason this article has been nominated for deletion is that people don't like having facts perceived as negative published about their schools. If this were an article called "Lottery winners from Ivy League universities," or "U.S. Mayors who are graduates of Ivy League schools," this page never would have been commented on, let alone been nominated for deletion. -Bindingtheory 18:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't agree. I mean, I agree with you that academic boosterism is a perennial problem. (I have attempted occasionally to mention in the MIT article that MIT's library is quite notably poor in relation to MIT's reputation, and it has never lasted for more than a day). But the problem is that this article groups things that are utterly unrelated. To rephrase seriously what I stated above as a joke, what, exactly, do suicides at Harvard have to do with suicides at Columbia, and why don't suicides at MIT belong in the same article (MIT and Harvard sharing a locale, a high-pressure milieu, and a sanguinary school color?) What's the point of this article? Either it is implying that there's something about the Ivy League that encourages violent crime and suicide... in which case it is both original research and an attack... or it is a miscellaneous collection of unrelated information. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Really? The Ivies have a shared reputation, and the schools are often thought of collectively rather than individially. People often say, for example, "he has an Ivy League education" rather than "He graduated from Columbia". There's nothing unusual about considering them or people affiliated with them as a group. We in fact have an entire article about the Ivy League, where we list Harvard with Columbia, but don't mention MIT even once.

Suicides and murders (see List of suicides, which has been on WP for 4 years, and List of murdered people, which has been around for 3 years) are encyclopedic. The Ivy League is encyclopedic. And lists are encyclopedic. Combining those topics does not make them any less so.

P.S. I certainly have no arguments against an article that lists suicides of schools with a shade of red as their school color, given some of the other strange lists that exist on the Wikipedia.  :) -Bindingtheory 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those reasons also support having Date rape in the Pac 10, and similar articles. Will you be working on those next, or should we start a WikiProject? --C S (Talk) 02:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to disagree there. I'd also object to "Lottery winners from Ivy League universities" or "U.S. Mayors who are graduates of Ivy League schools" and say they make much more sense if they include all universities. Hence, ((globalize)) -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A random collection of news clippings is not remotely encyclopedic. Fan1967 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, Comment. The existence of this article seems to suggest that the Ivy League has some sort of crime-fighting competition. I suggested the merge into Ivy League, because I don't think this material is necessarily unencyclopedic, although definitely hinging on 'no original research.' Better than a merge would be a move/expansion to List of violent crimes and suicides at colleges and universities in the United States or similar, which doesn't inherently make original research suggestions of a correlation between these schools and crime. See Dpbsmith's MIT comment above. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a list of people/events that share the commonality of an affiliation with an Ivy League university. No rational person reading this article is going to think that there is any inherent connection between the Ivies and crime, any more than someone reading List of people who died in the bathroom will think that there is an inherent connection between bathrooms and death. -Bindingtheory 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad example. There is an inherent connection between bathrooms and death. Statistics have repeatedly shown it's the most dangerous room in the house. And I think any rational person reading this article would at least get the impression that the author is trying to show a connection between the Ivies and crime/suicide. Fan1967 19:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. -Bindingtheory 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Ivy commonality is trivial in this case. Expanding to include all universities fixes the problem, presents a more global view, and makes more sense from an informational standpoint. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 19:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh... I honestly believe that the majority of the people who oppose this article are doing so purely because of their own emotional investment in the articles about their favorite school(s), that the person who nominated this for deletion (and I don't even know who that was) wouldn't have said a thing if this had been an article called "Crime and Suicide at Jesuit Colleges." That being said, I also admit I am emotionally invested in this article because i've spent so much freaking time researching it, so I very well may not be seeing things as clearly as I should (especially given my lack of coffee this afternoon). I stand by the statements that this article is encyclopedic, that it is not original research, and that it is not "a random collection of news clippings" or "an indiscriminate collection of information". But I am willing to compromise, per mercuryboard's (and someone else's?) suggestion that it be expanded to include all U.S. colleges and universities if that's amenable to everyone else, too. -Bindingtheory 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may honestly believe that, but by doing so, you are not assuming good faith. Plenty of reasons have been given here, and I think you ought to realize they are the typical reasons that are given for deleting this kind of list. Please do not persist in ascribing ulterior motives to people. --C S (Talk) 00:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't oppose it because it mentions my university, I just know about it because it mentions my university. I think it's important information, if it's accurate and complete. The way to make it complete is remove the restriction to Ivies. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 20:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Why haven't you researched crime and suicide at Jesuit schools? Why not research crime and sucide at state schools? How about teachers colleges? Seminaries? Engineering schools? Why put so much freaking time into this one? Fan1967 22:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's kind of a weird question. Why does anyone edit anything? Because I find it interesting. I'm also more familiar with the Ivies than with other schools. -Bindingtheory 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually that's a very relavent question, per wiki-guildlines [1], notably the passage marked "The right way for things..." etc. No one has a problem with you researching a variety of crimes related to the Ivies, they have a problem with you deciding to publish your list on wikipedia. Markeer 23:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as indiscrimate collection. What about Violent crime and suicide at shopping malls, Violent crime and suicide in back alleys, Violent crime and suicide in Podunk, AL? No no, a random collection of violence and death in Ivy league schools, or grouped by any location type, is merely crime voyeurism. Remove this essay before it tarnishes Wikipedia's reputation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the individual school entries to their specific school article (e.g. events from Columbia University sent to Columbia University). I have no problem with data that violence happened at a school I am looking up in the encyclopedia -- it's important reference information -- but a generalized list of crimes grouped together by a naming convention? "Violence at Big Ten Schools" would be a rediculous topic since those schools have nothing in common besides the football division they are in, so there's no objective linkage regarding criminal activity. Same goes for here, although I grant the items themselves may have historical or informational value Markeer 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem I see with this is that a few isolated incidents aren't significant enough to warrant sections or mention in the main articles of these schools. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 21:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. And as the lists become longer and more complete, they'll overwhelm the main content of the article. -Bindingtheory 22:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that will depend on the editors of those school articles, as they decide what's relevent and important information. If a well documented group of recent crimes at, say, Yale starts to grow lengthy, it could be split off from the Yale University article as a sub-article...if that is, the editors of that page believe that information has encyclopedic value. The problem with the list as it exists, is that there's no meaning or purpose to it beyond making a list of crimes that are not particularly noteworthy except to the families of those involved (I don't mean that to sound cold or heartless)...but given an air of prestige because those crimes happened at the 'top schools'. As people have said, a similar list of 40 crimes from the last 3 decades at shopping malls would hardly excite this level of debate. It would just be deleted as listcruft. Comment All of that in mind, I *do* feel there is some encyclopedic value in knowing crime/suicide information about a school, as that is a determining factor in attendence for a student, hence the suggestion of merging to those school articles. Without the context of information about a school, this is a list of random events and should be deleted. Markeer 22:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for three reasons:
  • Firstly, smells like listcruft;
  • Secondly, smells like OR;
  • Thirdly, many of the events detailed are not events which occurred at the supposedly connected institution, but merely involved alumni or current staff and students at other locations unrelated to their capacity as members of the institution. Do we have such a page for every group of universities which has produced people who went and offed themseles or their families and friends in incidents unrelated to their alma mater? No, and nor should we. SM247 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is just a list, not an article. The intro says only what the conditions are to list something here. They are basically meaningless conditions, as employees killed at their off campus homes qualify. If we said to merge by school, the school editors would rightly say that everything has to go. The typical Ivy League school has a few thousand students, a few thousand staff and faculty. Among that many randomly chosen Americans over as many , statistics would say that there ought to be more murders and suicides than are recorded. This data could be a basis for OR saying that really, no, there isn't a problem, but until someone does that research and gets it published elsewhere, we can't use it. GRBerry 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that the Ivy League universities promote themselves as places of learning rather than places where violent crime and suicide intrude. It is the unexpected or contrary to the promotion that makes them notable. Like airplane crashes are noteworthy, planes that take off and land safely, or merely cause loss of luggage aren't for the same reason. Carlossuarez46 00:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't all universities promote themselves as places of learning? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Read the article again. A large number of these events didn't even happen at the universities. Dartmouth professors get murdered by a couple teenage thugs at their home. A Harvard dean's secretary gets robbed and killed at her apartment. A Harvard student gets robbed and stabbed in the Combat Zone. A Penn student is involved in a murder in Delaware. Maybe the article should be titled Violent crime and suicide involving people in some way connected with Ivy League universities. Fan1967 02:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As pointed out by Dpsmith and SM247, this is a collection of very loosely related events. The mere existence of this article is suggestive of some relationship, where there is none. --C S (Talk) 00:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If the major criticism is that the material is loosely-related primarily because it includes not just at the colleges themselves but also "anyone connected with the campus", then would removing those that are not on campus (for some definition of "campus") make the article more coherent (good for the article and readers) and resolve this AfD? DMacks 02:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You're still left with a police blotter of unrelated events, decades apart. Putting them together in an article implies a connection. Fan1967 02:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (for DMacks) not really. I wouldn't even support having a list of crimes occurring at any one institution, let alone a collocation of universities, because the incidents are not systemic or related to the institution. The only (rather tenuous) common nexus is caused by the fact that the victims or perpetrators are all connected to a university. Using the same principle, there could also be one list of murders or suicides on metros in different French cities, from skyscrapers in cities on the US Eastern Seaboard, a list of people been thrown from the 18th floor of any building in Denmark etc. There really isn't much logical difference as there is no causal nexus between a) any of the incidents at a particular place, and thus neither is there one b) between a particular institution and deaths cited as being related thereto and thus c) nothing connecting a death only tenously connected to one uni to another uni by virtue of the association of the unis. Jammo (SM247) 04:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split or move? The article already is tagged to globalize and set in context, so maybe expand and refocus to Crime on college campuses is the way to go? There's often a false sense of security, a feeling of being in an idyllic bubble on campus, where local communities don't intrude ("ivory tower"). Hrm, not sure a comprehensive list is useful there. Okay, how about expand and refocus to College suicide? Is there enough material about suicide among students, its effects on the fairly tight-knit communities that are found on campus, etc. to make an article (Epidemiology and methodology of Suicide is already fairly long and not focused on effects)? There might be few enough cases that a list of them would be appropriate as part of that article. DMacks 02:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I think there's a potential for a real article on College suicide, not based on anecdotes like this, but with real statistics. I know there is published research on the subject, and high-pressure schools (not just Ivy, but every top-grade school) have higher rates. As for crime, most of it (not all, but most) has little to do with the school and a lot to do with the neighborhood it's in. Fan1967 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete $SOCIAL_PROBLEM at $EXPENSIVE_EDUCATIONAL_ESTABLISHMENT is not a suitable encyclopedia article. What's next Meth abuse at Oxbridge? -- GWO
• Delete per nom. (Though for a moment thought GWO wanted an article on Math abuse at Oxbridge - much more controversial...) Inner Earth 09:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even as the article makes the school from which I dropped out look quite safe--at least relative to the rest of the Ivies--is is wholly unencyclopedic, as well explained, inter al., by Jdoor, SM247, Dpsmith, Mercury, Fan, and KillerC (rarely does one find an AfD at which five cogent, succinct, and internally conistent arguments are advanced, and I think this discussion to be propitious, inasmuch as it well elucidates why lists of this sort ought to be looked upon with disfavor). I'd caution, though, that we ought to be cognizant of WP:BEANS, lest we should soon end up with Meth abuse at Oxbridge, Pastries sold in Ivy League dining halls, and Violent crime and suicide at Podunk, AL. FWIW, Rbellin is, IMHO, right to say that an article apropos of general trends w/r/to college suicides, especially at highly competitive universities (where suicides, if not violent crimes, occur with a greater frequency, statistics bare out, than they do at other schools), would likely be alright, but surely there is nothing in this list that we could properly merge into a broader article. Joe 18:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's think positive. I propose Deeds of random kindness and senseless acts of beauty at NESCAC colleges, Species of wall-climbing flora found on Ivy League buildings, and Fitness activities in colleges located in towns named Cambridge. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Last year and adjunct professor here (West Coast public university, no Ivy) was killed along with his wife by the deranged brother of the wife. Relation to campus life = zero, but it's deemed notable according to the given rules. Utter nonsense. trialsanderrors 23:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; reads like a bad tabloid television script. 100% original research. Ral315 (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is the kind of list that will always reek of POV, as whatever is most readily available will be plopped onto the list without concern for accuracy or completeness. Someone obviously went to great lengths to research every sordid event in Harvard's recent history, but it seems unlikely that Yale has never had a suicide, and that Princeton has only experienced two violent crimes in its entire history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.198.239.111 (talk • contribs)
• Keep, Every statement is verifiable, a notable topic that details events. Englishrose 13:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. "This page documents Violent Crimes at Ivy League Universities, ... . This is primarily a list; ..." Read as "This entry apsires to be a data dump", well, Wikipedia isn't a data dump. Dr Zak 18:51, 16 June 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.