Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction (3rd nomination)

List of suicides in fiction

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction
• Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction (4th nomination)

List of suicides in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. While the previous AfD established the notability of "Suicide in Fiction," this article remains unclear and unclean. There needs to be some sort of qualification for notability; Wikipedia has thousands of articles about movies, games, and other fiction, all of which are considered notable themselves but include a suicide that is unmemorable or trivial but, as of now, could be included on this list.Yaksar (let's chat) 08:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep for all the reasons mentioned last time. If you agree suicides in fiction is notable, then why do you object to having a list of them? Dream Focus 10:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it's an impossibly long list that only serves as a directory. This isn't a case of just a list that will never be fully finished; it's something that really won't be of any use to a reader without either more criteria or qualifications needed for notability. I also agree that, say Small Businesses are notable, but that doesn't mean that I feel an indiscriminate list would be fitting.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Most articles on Wikipedia are never finished, that's why people keep editing them. Why would it need to be fully finished? And this is not indiscriminate. Dream Focus 15:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Potentially useful information for someone researching this topic. The article needing cleanup is not a reason for deletion.Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep "I don't like it," but it is an important topic. The list should be useful to interested people. BTW how about some people from Shakespeare? My bad. Some are there, but not all. Borock (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per above. It's not indiscriminate, and I can't figure out what which of the 7 examples in WP:NOTDIR it would conceivably fall under. To an extent, any list, category, table or template is a "directory". "Unclear and unclean" is an argument I hadn't read before on AfD, and a welcome break from the cliches that abound here. However, the obvious solution to that problem is "clear it up" and "clean it up". Mandsford 17:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• The problem is that there is no way to clear or clean it up without changing the criteria, and there is no way to change the criteria on an article like this; the title describes what it is. Think about it, in an ideal state, this article would contain every single suicide in fiction ever, from comics to movies to videogames to myths. Even the qualification of "notable" suicides would be an improvement, rather than an all encompassing list of every fictional suicide.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Obviously you don't need to use the word "notable". Everything on the list is from a fictional source which has been proven notable enough to have its own article. So it isn't a real concern. Dream Focus 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep – This is a proper topic for a stand-alone list. The nominator ought to remember that AfD is not a forum for cleanup. --Danger (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Nominator has failed to articulate any reason for deletion: IINFO does not apply to a coherent list of topics like "suicide in fiction" because "suicides in fiction" is not a trivial cross-characterization, NOTDIR does not apply because this does not attempt to be a comprehensive directory of all possible fictional suicides. Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete listing everytime someone (sourced or not) has committed suicide in fiction is indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. Our list articles should have precise standards, but the criteria for inclusion for this list is overly broad and as such a discriminate article is impossible to achieve from the topic. Any such list that encourages editors to pile-in everything they can think of that fits the topic is unencyclopedic and shouldn't be here. ThemFromSpace 18:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep "unclear and unclean." is a reason to work on a list , or ask others to help work on it, but not a reason for deletion. Nothing notable is intrinsically unclear or unclean, it just takes careful editing. All lists of this sort have the implicit restriction of being limited to significant whatevers in notable subjects. In the case of fiction, we consistently consider fiction to encompass games, comics, films, and all other forms. If the list gets to long, we sometimes do divide by forms, but that is rarely necessary. As here, Wikipedia content is a balance between the considerations of NOT DIR and NOT PAPER. Both rules are necessary for a comprehensive modern encyclopedia. We do have standards, although very little in Wikipedia can have precise standards. If we eliminated everything where the standards were not precise, we'd be limiting our coverage to mere directory information, for everything beyond that takes judgement. The red herring that such lists include everything possible is absurd--the fictional works we consider notable are a very small proportion of the total. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note I changed my reasons for the nomination to make them a bit more clear, I was somewhat rushed at the time. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)