Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide (2)

Suicide
Delete I should start by mentioning that this book has been nominated for deletion before. After an anonymous user queried this page I took the time to read through the book. There is an extensive toc but the actual content is mostly confided to Suicide/Jumping, Suicide/Saying_Goodbye, Suicide/Suicide_Notes, and Suicide. The book might be ok if it lived up to its own description of what it is and isn't, but as such after reading it I am can only draw the following conclusions:
 * 1) If I jump, a straight dive is best. I should practice at a pool to make sure I can get it right.
 * 2) Hard surfaces are better to hit, the head will absorb the energy of impact in 0.0012s (NTS: really? regardless of velocity?)
 * And, according to a TV show, 25 meters should do it.
 * 1) Saying goodbye is something anyone would want to do before committing suicide, there are different methods for telling people, but if I don't want to do it I can go ahead and commit suicide.
 * 2) Same goes for Suicide notes.
 * 3) There are a bunch of neat google searches I can do about things like decapitation and complex methods of suicide.

I should mention, to be well rounded, the description of what the book is the book does link to one list of suicide hotline numbers appropriate for the US. But my impression of the only content added to the book since its creation does have POV problems.

There were three keep votes in the original Rfd. One that said the book was kept with the opinion of many people because it was RfD'ed so close to its creation, and that it might be ok if it didn't only advocate suicide.

Another keep vote said it was a POV violation not to include a book on committing Suicide. This is an interesting point, does NPOV about the choice of books we include, the books themselves, or both? One I don't want to debate here, I will simply point out that WB:SOAP states it is the individual modules that must maintain NPOV.

The books creator also voted for keeping the book, as I interpret his comments it is ok to keep a book advocating suicide just like it is ok for a C++ book advocates the use of that language.

Many people made excellent comments, followed by a lets wait and see what this book becomes. As it is now 2 years later, it is a good time to review. Thenub314 (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. I declined the query because it's been created for ages and because it's got an outline. If POV and poorly defined scope are the only problems, why can't somebody simply define the scope, weed out the biased POVs and cite the rest? Maybe, just maybe, a psychologist or somebody will dedicate himself to this book in the future, and turn it into a good book, maybe even a featured book. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Thanks for the notification Thenub314, I'm not the creator but have attempted to fix the book a little (feel free to check the previous status). The bottom line is that the book is a stub anyone can improve it and reshape freely (I'm referring to the structure and defining a direction for the content). The topic of the book will not be seen as politically correct, most of the deletions request tend to stem from that or get special momentum because of it, as such we should increase the level of protection granted to it, this type of works are beneficial for the project as it creates diversity of thoughts and opinions and protects also the needed diversity of Wikibooks, in general I don't mind deleting stalled old stubs but this makes this one special.
 * In this specific case the topic covered is important and often discarded, death in general is becoming increasingly tabu in most of our societies, since I did attempt to correct past problems, I did examine the points you raise and I don't see them as a major problem I've checked the fist 2 on your list the first is beneficial not only for the person considering the thing but it also can promote detection of the persons intentions and you decontextualized the second one, it relates to the example being given, it is my interpretation that it refers to the force at the moment of impact...
 * In any case it is my view and I'm voting accordingly. A deletion is not on the best interests of the project and that none of the issues the work may have are un-fixable at this stage of development. --Panic (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep 
 * (Unfortunately the policy says RfD discussions are for registered users. Thenub314 (talk))
 * I agree that the unregistered opinions shouldn't be considered important and have very low relevance (especially if they don't add arguments) but they still have the right to participate and I would grant them a minor weight on the outcome. As for the policy only in "Every registered Wikibooks user can participate in the discussion process..." it doesn't specify the what unregistered users can do (In any case this requires further investigation, consideration. Was this a recent change in the policy?). In this project we still accept contribution of unregistered users, excluding those people of the RfD would also refuse people wanting to remain anonymous to within reason defend their work under RfD ... --Panic (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg  Strong Delete Panic has put a lot of excellent work into this book. Despite his efforts, I still find it quite biased. In fact more so.  There have been added lots of images, many of romantic images of famous suicides.  Lots of quotes for suicide notes.  Many more graphs, without text explaining them.   There has been some sections added, most consisting of only images.  Where text is added it does not live up to our verifiable criteria, and OR is implicitly (and possibly accidentally) placed into the work.
 * The graphs give the appearance of verifiability, without actually giving solid references.
 * The quotes form suicide notes only more bias the book toward the point of view that suicide is acceptable. Without offering alternate perspectives.
 * The sections I mentioned previously remain effectively the same.
 * I should explain what I mean by OR exists. Is it really a common to use of suicide to as a political protest?  According to us it is.  Is it really a form of mental torture to be place in a US jail or prison, according to wikibooks (currently) it is (which I find offensive on a personal level).  This is what some people call synthesis, the book is using facts to draw new conclusions which as far as I know are not drawn elsewhere.


 * So to summarize I feel this book as it stands is unverifiable, contains synthesis (a form of OR), and is biased. It doesn't stand a hope of being developed into a text that could be used to teach a course at any accredited institution I am familiar with. Thenub314 (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Sorry, but this seems a bit over the top, Thenub314. I understand that it's an emotional issue and you may find it personally offensive. Every graph I checked linked to source data and don't see the blatant OR going on here. --Swift (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the graphs do point to their source. It is the choice of how the information is included that bothers me.  The case of the graph involving declining suicide rates in Jail, relative to rather constant suicide rates in prison, the image is place in a section on "mental torture."  To me this implies that being put in prison or jail is a form of torture.  Since the subsection on mental torture is included under "Common motivations", the implication would seem to be that it is life in prison driving people to commit suicide.   This is not what is claimed if you follow the link to the data.  Perhaps I am a bit sensitive to this particular instance, given my particular relationship to the prison system in the US, but it is clear there is no underlying source here.  What little is written is written is the personal views and interpretation of data and historical facts of the editors here.  To give another example consider the section on jumping.  It first gives a classic parabolic graph for an objects velocity under constant gravity.  This (in my opinion) is more or less irrelevant, as wind resistance plays a major factor.  Then it proceeds to quote a forensic pathology book.  Giving the appearance that something meaningful is being said.  Unfortunately when one actually reads the forensic pathology book it is not speaking about head injuries incurred from jumping off of tall structures.  Instead it is talking about low velocity impacts, that might occur from say tripping and falling.  The author is then applying this to another situation.  The book does not say soft tissue injuries that occur when you jump from a building are not fatal.  That was the opinion of the author writing the section.  Thenub314 (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This book is well within the scope of Wikibooks. Cases of bias or original research should be fixed or removed if there are any. --Swift (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * After some further reflection, I could see moving this book to a chapter of a book on Death. The philosophy department where I was an undergraduate offered such a course on the subject, and it naturally covered the spirit of what this book aims to cover.  A factual description of what suicide is, along with a discourse of ideas surrounding it.  In addition having the book as part of a broader context could bring a lot to it.  I recall having discussed other philosophical issues about about death fit quite well with this subject.  For example, to what extent informed consent and pain relief (say in late stage cancer's) consist of medically assisted suicide?  (It is not uncommon for the pain relievers to be the direct cause death it seems).  But I would be curious if people thought this would make the context too broad. Thenub314 (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If no one has objections I think this seems to be a case of "closed as keep," as I am the only one in favor of deleting. (But I leave my delete vote, as it remains to be my opinion) Thenub314 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)