Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide by hanging

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. Not really much to add to the below consensus, which doesn't need clarifying. Pretty clear cut. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide by hanging

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

I'm concerned about this article. I'd expect an article like this to be built around medical references, etc. Instead, it seems to be built around an article hosted at http://www.suicidemethods.net/text/halfofit.htm#chaphanging -, by a chap called Geo Stone. There's a bit too much 'recommending' for my taste, and not enough dispassionate analysis. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. - frankie (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. - frankie (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator). The nomination doesn't give any reasons to delete. There are enough references to the subject to pass the GNG. The point that this has too much "recommending" and not enough dispassionate analysis is spurious. I can only locate one sentence about mostly practical matters: "Regarding the practicalities of performing a drop hanging, Stone recommends using a low-stretch rope such as manila or hemp, that the rope be more than an inch thick, and that the knot be close to the chin and situated such that it will "rotate toward the chin and snap the head backwards" when the rope is pulled." The rest appears to be "dispassionate analysis" to me. Regarding Stone, I opened a thread at RSN here (contains more info on reliability of Stone). There was only one respondent so it was inconclusive. Even without Stone, the subject would still clearly meet the GNG. Regarding "I'd expect an article like this to be built around medical references": it is not just medicine that studies suicide (though the article contains appropriate such references) but other fields. In any case, that isn't a reason to delete. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 22:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a notable topic in research and criminology and psychology separate from just hanging. The suicide article is too long and is more of a trunk and this is a branch of that area of study.Herrabackfromhiatus (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like a disproportionate amount of this article is devoted to execution by hanging. --Djohns21 (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article appears to be well sourced, and contains too much information to be merged conveniently back to Suicide. I agree with Djohns21 that the information about execution is inappropriate for this article, given its title. I would delete the whole paragraph about "drop hanging". --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this topic were to be merged, the correct target would not be Suicide as some commentors have alluded, but Suicide methods. LadyofShalott 01:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No rationale given by the nominator. Lugnuts (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written and sourced page and has too much content to suit merging.RafikiSykes (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well written, well sourced, notable topic. Main Suicide article is too long, and this one is too long to be merged into suicide methods. AFD is not for cleanup. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources in the article clearly support the notability of the topic. As Crisco 1492 points out, to the extent the article needs improvement, AfD is not the venue. cmadler (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ample coverage of this. Dream Focus 21:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arbcom going nuts with concerns, eh? Sources used here are reliable. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced to the gills. Lots of people don't like abortion, but that doesn't mean it's not an encyclopedic topic. Now the nominator, who should know better, will please remove his glasses for a right proper fish-smacking... Carrite (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written, well sourced, notable topic. --- couldn't have said it better. Deleting pages about stuff you don't like is as useful as shutting your eyes and hoping it'll go away. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unpleasant topic, and I understand the concerns of the nominator - particularly in the article's state at the beginning of this discussion (when there was some NOTHOWTO problems), but it is clearly notable and is now written neutrally. LadyofShalott 12:29, 8 August 2011 (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.