Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Heisman

Mitchell Heisman

Mitchell Heisman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Sad story. Otherwise unknown 35 year old shoots himself on the Harvard campus. He happens to leave a 1900 page suicide note. But Wikipedia is not a news organization so this article does not belong here. Pichpich (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as Wikipedia is not the news or a memorial site (only notable for her death]]. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete non notable death—Chris!_c/t 04:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep or perhaps move the article to "Mitchell Heisman Suicide" or "Suicide Note (book)". There's coverage by five separate journalistic organizations (i.e. who did their own separate investigations, not just reprinting each other's work), including two worldwide news organizations, one in Portugal, plus Gawker (which I didn't reference because they merely repeat the Crimson story). If you read the comment threads on any of the referenced articles, you'll find lots of random people saying things like this:
  • "This man just earned himself a place next to Plato, Aristotle, and Nietzsche (of course) in the historical records,"
  • "the most important thing I have ever read,"
  • "very well-researched, reads like Nietzsche in its genealogy of liberal democracy. Also like Nietzsche, it apparently brought him to a psychotic break. It seems like he was a witty, thoughtful guy who simply became obsessed by the absurdity of existence."
  • "I sense he has written something important for all of us who have ears to listen to."

Well-known theoretical physicist Luboš Motl described "Suicide Note" as "pretty impressive work" and praised Heisman as "a man of wisdom". Of course, it's only been a week since publication, so it's hard to tell reliably whether this particular work will turn out to have any enduring importance or influence; but all indications so far are that it will. We can hope that it does not influence future scholars to publicize their work in the same manner. Perhaps we should have a deletion discussion in a few months, after secondary sources have had a little bit more time to digest this stuff; right now all we have to work with is the primary source itself and shallow news reports and the like, not real academic analysis. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If the note itself stands the test of time as literature, there will be plenty of time later to recreate a page about it, mentioning the biography of its author. As of now, this is just a bit of breaking sensational Newsotainment that is unworthy of inclusion. —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.

I can see how someone would think that, but I think a careful consideration of the available facts and analysis will show that this book is likely to have substantial historical importance, in popularizing certain philosophical and sociobiological points of view if nothing else. (I am not endorsing those points of view.) We must be careful not to be distracted by our entirely understandable prejudice against suicides in general and publicity-seeking suicides in particular. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. While it made blogs, Wikipedia is not governed by such gossip. It made news for two peculiarities, the length of the suicide note (or book, given its length) and for occurring at Harvard, but hardly encyclopedic. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The five blogs currently cited by the article are journalistic publications, not self-published personal blogs, so I think they carry some weight. Of course, journalistic publications have somewhat different standards of notability than Wikipedia, but I think that in this case there is overlap. In a few months we should be able to judge more accurately whether this was just "gossip". Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An extended statement by unregistered IP, no vote was given but safe to think it a "keep". [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[Note: When I posted this comment, this article was currently marked as a being considered for deletion.] How on earth could this article be being considered for deletion? Just because the guy killed himself? Everyone's focusing now on the fact that Mitchell Heisman killed himself - but so did Cleopatra VII of Egypt, Hannibal, Nero, Virginia Woolf, Sigmund Freud, Ernest Hemingway, Alan Turing, Sylvia Plath, Yukio Mishima, Hunter S. Thompson, Kurt Cobain, and Vincent van Gogh... and people don't focus solely on the fact that they ended their own lives, but also on what they produced during their lives. (A cousin of Heisman's has stated [in a comment at Huffington Post] that he was really affected by the death of his father when he was twelve, and it pushed him into a kind of overly materialistic view of life... which could go a long way towards explaining the kind of materialistic reductionism in his book - and maybe also, in part, his suicide. Heisman also says this in the last chapter of the book.) Focus on his book, not on his suicide. It's not a fun or perhaps even a "healthy" book to read - but it sure is fascinating. He is attempting to grapple with some fundamental issues at the core of Western civilization. He may be right about some things, and terribly wrong about others - but his book is a serious attempt to address core themes in philosophy, science, politics, and biology - and as such, his book merits analysis, discussion, rebuttal perhaps - and certainly inclusion in Wikipedia (ie, an entry about the author, and eventually an entry about the book itself). The book (ie, the "suicide note") is quite ambitious, far-ranging and interesting - it presents some extreme and provocative theories about the Jews and Egyptians and the Greeks, the origins of Judaism and Christianity, the Americans and the English (which he breaks down into the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans), tribes and races, biology and technology, God as artificial intelligence / Kurzweil's "Technological Singularity" (sometimes paraphrased as the idea that God hasn't actually been invented yet), Darwin and Nietzsche and Marx and Jefferson (and Leo Strauss and Hitler)... It ends with a very moving self-examination describing his exaggerated objectivity, his inability to take his own emotions seriously. He does ignore lots of things which seem crucial to me (like the collapse of Gaia, which seems to me to be the central fact of existence today and which probably doesn't leave much time for the Singularity to ever take place - or even just basic human experiences such as love and happiness*), but within the limits of his discourse (which is still pretty broad, encompassing a lot of the classic major intellectual themes of western civ), he raises some interesting issues in unusual ways. [*Actually, now that i've gotten to the end of it (the "punchline" chapter), i see that there IS a section about normal human emotions such as love, which he admits he basically analyzed away, with his obsession with being materialistic and objective and his experiment in nihilism.] The middle of the book contains a lengthy (and possibly quite original) historical analysis attempting to show that the American Civil War was not fought to liberate the black slaves - it was instead just a kind of tribal warfare between the people of Massachusetts (Anglo-Saxons) and the people of Virginia (Normans) - as revenge for the Norman conquest of Anglo-Saxon England way back in 1066. I'd never heard of this theory, as i'm not very well informed on historiography - i wonder if it's original with him. At any rate, it's quite interesting. At the beginning of the book, he claims that the Jewish invention of their God was a way to escape their enslavement by the Egyptians. Again, I'm not sure if this is original or not - but again, it's quite an interesting assertion. There's lots of other stuff - some of which may or may not hold any water - it's definitely the strangest thing i've ever seen since Schreber's memoirs or Deleuze & Guattari's Anti-Oedipus - wildly outrageous in some places but also weirdly lucid in other places... I wonder what kind of reaction this book will provoke over time... I certainly don't know what to make of it myself, except maybe to view it as something which should be warded off. Is it just a very extreme view of history? Or maybe a symptom (or a diagnosis) of a mad civilization (or of a mad individual)? Could merely reading it be a sign (or a cause) of madness? It makes me wonder: what if aliens from another planet stumbled across this book? If they studied enough human history and learned enough English to be able to process what it says, would they be aghast at a species and a civilization and an individual that could produce such a strange stream of symbols? If one accepts James Lovelock's assertion that humanity is indeed killing Gaia, then the individual nihilistic self-destructiveness documented by this book could serve as to document the planetary nihilistic self-destructiveness of civilization itself. I do feel like his book like a car wreck, and i'm a rubber-necker. Again, this does not mean that this author and this work should be excluded from wikipedia. Reading Kafka also gave me the creeps, but Kafka has a page in Wikipedia too. Basically, i would say that this book represents a kind of twisted culmination of Western thought, a blow-by-blow description of someone who pushed certain Western notions of objectivity and materialism to their ultimate conclusion and thereby painted himself into a corner - perhaps somewhat along the lines of Kafka's short parable "A Little Fable" about a mouse who thought the world was so big, until the walls appeared, and started closing in on him, and he ran in every which way, confused, until a cat told him to change directions - and ate him. http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/LittFabl.shtml Heisman's book is a fascinating examination of where Western thought can lead, if pursued ad absurdum. As such, perhaps it can serve as a warning to some people, as a counter-measure, a cautionary tale, telling us where we might end up if we embrace truth and objectivity in extreme over life and subjectivity. I'm not saying that everything in the book makes sense - but it is certainly a poignant document expressing one individual's attempt to understand his place in the universe. He himself accepted that he had "failed", and acknowledged this in the last chapter. It is touching to see how he tried to anchor himself in the world of emotions by listening to music - specifically to Bach (perhaps not the most inspiring musician to listen to - as in my opinion Bach is himself rather reductionist, mathematical - ie not terribly emotional.) But, as I remarked above, Sylvia Plath and Curt Cobain and Vincent van Gogh are all in wikipedia, and they all produced fascinating works, and they all destroyed themselves. Mitchell Heisman probably falls into the same category as them - a great mind who willed his own demise - and his far-ranging work does constitute an ambitious attempt to make some sense of the trajectory Western civilization itself. Whether we regard his work and his life as a failure or not, it certainly is an interesting enough case to be included in wikipedia.

Whoa, can we put a hat on this? Ishdarian|lol^wut 07:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a notable event, and even it if wasn't a notable event, the work is definitely notable. It's a notable event, as it gets discussed more and more, people are going to show up here looking for more information about the author's life. I know, I just did. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, violates scads of policies, especially BLP1E. Hairhorn (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E indicates that we should rename the article to be "Mitchell Heisman Suicide" or "Suicide Note (book)", not delete it. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that BLP is not exactly relevant for someone who just committed suicide. Pichpich (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"BLP1E" is a misnomer. The notability guidelines for people notable for only one event say nothing about being alive or dead. And renaming the entry after the event instead of the person is only an option when the event itself is notable, which it isn't. Hairhorn (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete on the basis of the non-notability of one who is known for a single event of non-historic importance. In addition, it would be a terrible precedent to allow a Wikipedia memorial article to stand for someone who just killed themselves this month. We're not here to give the Wikipedia seal of approval to creative or stylish suicides. Dude wasn't notable and leaving the world's longest suicide note might get him into the Guinness Book of World Records (although I doubt they'd want to encourage that behavior either), but it most certainly should not get him in Wikipedia. —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.

Wikipedia article coverage is limited to topics that are notable, not topics that receive a seal of approval. Disapproval is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep If it's notable enough for the New York Post and Huffington Post, it's notable enough for wikipedia. 24.18.46.29 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In general that is not the case — the Huffington Post reports frequently on daily trivia that are not notable in the long term, and the New York Post even more so — but it does represent some kind of evidence in that direction, because the event is clearly more notable than the vast majority of suicides. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Horrible car crashes in the New York area are typically reported on in each of the major NY papers. It's called daily news and it belongs at WikiNews. Pichpich (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Might deserve a footnote in the suicide note article for its exceptional length (that's how WP:ONEEVENT works).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. The individual is not notable. His suicide is temporarily newsworthy but not notable. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep It appears to be notable enough not to warrant deletion. As a student of philosophy, I suggest that it be reviewed to determine the exact nature of the suicide note so that it can be expanded upon in the article. The note is 1905 pages in length and over 500,000 words. 124.168.8.164 (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Until the Guinness Book proclaims this the longest suicide note in history, his suicide and his suicide note have had no notable influence on the world outside the people he knew. Kingturtle (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• keep - wikipedia is just a blog anyway so who cares about whether it's "notable". People need to stop taking wikipedia so seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.252.135 (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  No, Wikipedia is not a blog. There are policies with regards to notability.—Chris!_c/t 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep It's obviously the longest 'suicide note' in history. Is that really a point of contentious debate? I don't think we need Guiness to recognize that, when it is blatantly obvious. (I also believe it is unlikely that Guiness would ever use this as a category or record, since I would expect that they would not wish someone to try to break the record.) That being said, there are plenty of suicides on wikipedia with people who may only be notable by one thing, or for the reason or circumstances of their suicide..(i.e. one known distinctive trait/issue, and the suicide, or just the reasoning for the suicide, or outcome of the suicide which makes them notable) which makes them notable, some may be even less 'notable'. We have List of suicides, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suicides_due_to_cyber-bullying, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_who_committed_suicide_in_prison_custody, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Religious_people_who_committed_suicide, List_of_drug-related_deaths, etc. -- note I am placing lists here.. you can go through the individual ones. Surely at least a man who writes a 1900 pg (okay, lets take that with a grain of salt since in many cases the formatting makes it so long) -- but even a 400 or 500 page book would probably be the longest manifesto left as a statement upon ones suicide. Is he really any less notable than someone who commits suicide because of reason x,y, or z? Several of these people seem to be only notable because of the way their families reacted to the suicide after the fact, and/or for the circumstances related to the suicide. Centerone (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument would have some weight if you could find in that list someone who's sole claim to notability is the suicide. Pichpich (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep OK maybe my vote isn't that important since I'm just a casual user, not someone deeply involved in Wikipedia like most of the people on here seem to be. However, I will say that this Wikipedia page served it's function for me: I heard the name "Mitchell Heisman" and immediately searched Wikipedia and found what I was looking for. I hate coming here and not finding something; even a tiny "stub" is often very useful. Unless server space is a massive issue, I don't see the harm in keeping this small article to help others who, like me, surfed in from the Web looking for exactly what this article provides. 141.154.114.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

• Keep I am amazed and truly entertained by the policies and procedures of this forum. I wonder if this cold calculating process isn't in some way similar to Mitch's process itself. Cold calculation, like that of a panicked bureaucrat, that brought him to his death. He was my friend, and I am one of three primary sources for most of the articles sited, but I'm not here for that reason. I'm here to say that whether or not you do delete it doesn't matter. If Wikipedia was truly striving to present accurate information on unique events, I think this articles inclusion is a "no brainer." However, Wikipedia's purpose is to provide information on things that the public has interest in, with any controversy either expunged or in constant conflict. Wikipedia is a positive force, I use it all the time and I thank you for your service. However it is limited by these factors. Why not unburden yourselves from this discussion and delete the article. Like your forefather, the Nelson television rating system, you can always reinstate the article at a future date when the real determining factor of popularity is more settled. After all, you do have a page for the Jonas Brothers don't you? Was that determined by merit or sheer popularity? I'm sure I wouldn't know. You can commence with my expulsion now. Cheers. 209.6.76.165 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Jared Lucas Nathanson jared.nathanson@gmail.com