Deletion of Suicide methods (3rd nomination)

Comment: It seems that this article is being nominated for deletion solely out of certain individuals' notions of propriety and morality (and this moral outlook is not shared by everyone: personally, I see no problem with suicide, and much less with an article on the ways in which people do it).  There is no policy-based reason for this article to be deleted, and its topic is noteworthy.  The article itself is well referenced, although it could do with a cleanup, particularly for language and style.  However, the presence of the odd comma splice is obviously not why this discussion is occurring.  The nominator writes about the article being "ethically bankrupt" and so forth: ''I'' think it is providing a worthwhile public service (and this doesn't really matter, since "ethical conduct" is |no more what Wikipedia is about than performing public services).   The article provides solid information on a phenomenon which is a part of life, and deleting the article will not remove suicide from society, so this whole fiasco is a pointless waste of bandwidth.  Wikipedia doesn't exist to save people from their own actions, it exists to provide them with information.  So the article must stay
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: A lot of people on both sides seem to be missing the point. Neither "this teaches people how to kill themselves" nor "this discourages people from killing themselves" is pertinent reasoning. There are, as I understand it, three bedrock content policies for inclusion, and none of them is whether the information is good or not. On the other hand, one of them is |NPOV, and removing an article entirely because you don't like it is highly POV.&ndash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: There has been no substantial reason given for delete. There has been many for ''clean up'' but as it has already been said by many users above, this is not the place for clean up. The notion that some one may read it ''and because of the article'' commit suicide is pure conjuncture. It's like arguing that the article on Adjustable rate mortgage will make someone want to run out and refinance their home. If you want to apply the Wikipedia standards to that "delete reasoning" it screams  with no |reliable sources showing a direct link between this ''Wikipedia article'' and causing teens or anyone else to commit suicide. Show us something that passes  and you may have a case. The moral arguments fail  to boot. Again, there is no valid reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NPOV)

Comment: as per . "Wikipedia is about enforcing a public good." - no, it's not, it's about freely providing quality information to those seeking it (which may or may not be considered "public good", as this AfD clearly shows
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per  EVIL
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)