Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 banker suicides

2014 banker suicides

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. UnifiedLeft (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 banker suicides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Problems with neutrality and synthesis. It's just a loose list of suicides of anybody who might in some way be connected to the finance industry, used as a soapbox for "a deep-seated guilt amongst bankers as they realize that they are harmful to people in order to make money". Some of the cited sources actually take pains to point out that there isn't a rash of banker suicides in 2014, or point out that suicide is hardly specific to workers in one industry. bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete A coatrack for non-notable entries that are a slow-newsday fodder. And about 7 years too late. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep "Article content does not determine notability" "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."

This article is notable. It has been covered by NY Post, Bloomberg News and Washington Post amongst other mainstream news sources. A simple search on any mainstream search engine of '2014 banker suicides' will produce hundreds of news results. If the POV is faulty or there is a soapbox being used, then the article requires cleanup.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UnifiedLeft (talk • contribs)

• Conditional Keep Cleanup is necessary - bobrayner is correct in the fact that it has problems with neutrality. I now agree with UnifiedLeft that the topic is indeed notable enough to deserve an article, as per WP:GNG However, that makes the status of the article no better. If the article remains unedited or unfixed, then at least a temporary withdrawal of the article is called for until it can be adequately repaired. --Flipandflopped (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This deletion discussion is the target of a WP:Canvassing campaign on Reddit. VanIsaac_WS^cont 22:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for finding that, Vanisaac. This Redditor's contributions make it clear that the article is just a soapbox. For instance:

  I don't mind if its because of a "confirmation bias", "conspiracy", or an "investigation". Let's put the idea of bankers killing themselves where it belongs... our collective conscious (via Wikipedia)! Let's try to normalize banking suicides by promoting them ... Publicize and encourage the suicide of those responsible for the economic collapse, bailouts for the super-rich, and daily pillagers of the public's money by promoting them. Pleze expand the "2014 Banker Suicides" Wikipedia Page

  bobrayner (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course its a soapbox, but its not "just a soapbox" its a notable entry that is poorly written. So, remove the soapbox and move on. "Article content does not determine notability" "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." UnifiedLeft (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per Lugnuts (and many of the responding redditors, incidentally). This paragraph from one of the sources in the article puts it well:

Regardless, this morbid fascination of suicides within the community of financial professionals may be nothing more than random fluctuations in data. We won't know until someone actually studies the data.

That source also has a sentence which refers to this very article. I don't think it reflects well on Wikipedia for it to be there. ansh666 22:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It only matters if the subject is notable, "Ansh666" quotes a mainstream article about the subject that she/he is claiming is not noteworthy. There are hundreds of articles about the subject. If you want to frame the entry as a myth ie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunny_Man <--- this silly article then fine. But the fact that you can find so many articles about the subject is what makes it notable not whether you believe that the phenomena is "real". Be real, if you don't like the way its written, then frame it as a myth or discredited, but don't act like its made up, it is being covered by major news sources.UnifiedLeft (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Still, if notability has been gained by high-ranking media outlets (i.e Washington Post, NY Post) then it deserves an article as per WP:GNG. Obviously, as I stated before, cleanup is necessary. Also, a criticism section could be made to express any doubts and criticisms. --Flipandflopped (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have cited articles from CNN, Newsday, RT, Bloomberg, Fox News, ZeroHedge, Wall Street Journal, NY Post, the Atlantic, and Business Insider which focused on multiple cases as a group, just like this article does. I strongly encourage people to remove the soapbox and POV if they exist and clean up this article. Wikipedia guidelines state, "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Its been demonstrated that this article's subject matter is more notable than 99.9% of articles on Wikipedia. I think it is proper to remove the "marked for deletion" and clean it up if it needs.UnifiedLeft (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment — For all those interested, I am considering conducting a major reconstruction of the article over the next day or two using more adequate information presented in the sources rather than simply listing all of the suicides. If any possible deletion could hold off until then, it would be much appreciated - all this article needs is a major re-write. --Flipandflopped (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• agreed That sounds like a great idea Flipandflopped — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnifiedLeft (talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not entirely surprising that UnifiedLeft and Flipandflopped agree; the former account's only purpose is to promote this polemic and the latter account was created less than 24 hours ago. Which brings us back to the Reddit canvassing.

Of course the article is a soapbox, its my soapbox. You have every right to remove me from my soapbox and adjust the POV. But the article should not be deleted because although its biased as hell (i wrote it lol, of course its biase) it should be cleaned up and NOT deleted because it is notable as verified by 3rd parties which is IAW Wikipedia rules.

bobrayner (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. The two Bloomberg articles state that there's no trend here, just a bit of media sensationalism. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If the article were broadened, maybe it would work, but to pinpoint 2014 for what may (or may not even) be a statistical blip - rather than, say, 1929 - is a bit weak. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete It's very difficult to establish epidemiological clusters. An article of this type would need to include epidemiological research ie. suicide cluster (aka copycat suicide); otherwise it's magical thinking, amateur hour. The Bloomberg article concurs.[1] -- GreenC 01:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I restored the above comment, accidentally removed in an edit conflict. ansh666 01:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that this "debate" is about people not liking the subject matter. There are articles on Wikipedia about aliens, tarot card readers, and many other subjects that we may believe (or know) to be false. But that's not a reason to delete the articles. Now "Clarityfiend" wants to cite 2 articles and claim that the fact that they dispute that the suicides that they are reporting on represent a trend, fine, say that in the entry. But don't try and say on one hand I can find all of these articles that address a certain subject and on the other hand say what they are addressing is not "real" so I have to delete the entry. Lots of things on Wikipedia aren't "real", unicorns, trickle-down economics, a whole host of things, but you still find an entry for them. This phenomena has been covered by CNN, Wall Street Journal, NY Post, Bloomberg, RT, and many more news outlets which are cited in the entry. You can't say that its not being covered, because it is and I've already proven that. What you should do is to fix the POV and bias. I strongly suspect that the reasons you have claimed for deleting this entry(which I have defeated already) are not the real reasons why you want to delete this entry.UnifiedLeft (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What reasons do you suggest? bobrayner (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Cluster scares happen all the time, they are tabloid news fare. They can still be notable, is this one? There's no long term coverage: most of the sources date within a few weeks of each other, within the past month or so. There are also no experts, no epidemiologists, just journalism sensationalism. It appears to be garden variety run of the mill cluster scare. If there was long term coverage, and reliable sources from experts, I would be more inclined. -- GreenC 01:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Um, excuse me, but what happened to Assume Good Faith? I try not to take offence to the personal claims against me being a "fake account" Although I guess I am reasonably suspicious, being new, but I assure you I am nothing but a new editor to wikipedia, and it is wikipedia policy not to assume vandalism. Does it not say something that bobrayner is now down to the point of accusing other wikipedians with opposing viewpoints of being vandals? I am not attempting to promote any sort of agenda for anyone, and only wish to improve the article, so please, do not harass. I may be new, but by my understanding is that the WP:GNG qualifies an article on any subject that has gained any so much notability as being eligible for an article, no matter how wrong any reporting may have been. The article could go on to later mention that the entire theory ended up being false, but the article still stands. Any opinions that ALL media outlets had on the speculation can be included in the article in a criticism section or etcetera. I am NOT vandalizing, and I apologize if it appeared this way to anyone (somehow). If I am misinterpreting the 'notability' policy, please let me know, but as of this point I will continue to do all I can to improve this article. Thanks. --Flipandflopped (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. --RaiderAspect (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because news organizations have reported on the topic, that disqualifies it as news? It's a theory proposed by journalists which has gained significant amounts of notability and criticism alike in the media, and therefore deserves representation on wikipedia. If everything the NYP has ever reported on is now ineligible on the behalf of it being news, then, well... --Flipandflopped (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Major rewrite is now available. Can we start fresh with this rewrite? I neutralized and bettered the article, and added a criticism section. Notability is obvious, the article is protected by WP:GNG, and has been noted and reported upon by countless reliable media outlets, all with different opinions on the legitimacy of the topic. With those qualifications, that is something wikipedia readers most definitely should have the ability to find here as par Wikipedia Regulations. If the article is deleted, so be it, but I would appreciate a real response. --Flipandflopped (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. From what I've seen in what I've read, this is just a bunch of media sensationalism, loosely connecting suicides that have happened all over the place with the one common similarity of bankers. I'm not sure if it is notable. Something to remember: "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SOAPBOX, and probably fails notability criteria. ~Feedintm^Parley 02:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)