Wikipedia‐ノート:削除依頼/Category:首をつって自殺した人物

message: :en:Category:Suicides by hangingといったものがありますね。2006年4月に作成された後、2006年12月26日に削除依頼されていました。私の削除妥当という意思表示は変わりませんが、参考までに。--Tiyoringo 2007年6月12日 (火) 13:08 (UTC)
英語版での削除依頼審議について

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was  no consensus. Timrollpickering 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 
While it may be interesting to know why famous people committed suicide, it's not particularly relevant whether they did so by jumping, hanging or self-poisoning. >Radiant< 13:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
* Strong keep. Such lists provide valuable help for, for example, a historician who wants to make a research on popular methods of suicide by an epoch, or a psychiatrist may be able to do a significiant research by finding correlations between suicide methods and other factors (epoch, diagnosis, profession of person, nationality, location, etc). It's useful navigational and categorizational mechanism. Also, note that a subcategories includes various ritual suicides, such as Seppuku - I suppose there's no doubt that it's useful to be able to get a list of Japanese people who committed seppuku? --GreyCat 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
**Seppuku would be a reasonable exception since it's a cultural phenomenon. Jumping off a skyscraper, however, is not. >Radiant< 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
***I don't see why other methods are different. There's at least Sallekhana that is also a ritual suicide - is that a cultural phenomenon? Other examples include political prisoners in USSR usually suicided by hanging, because of lack of other options. Self-immolations also usually include important social aspect: it's one of the most painful methods and thus usually used by radical activists who protest something so strong that they'll going to sacrifice their own life for their beliefs, using public self-immolation to grab public attention to their ideas. Self-poisoning was a popular choice for medieval suicides - that's also a historical fact and I think it may be equally interesting for a researcher to have a list of people who committed sepukku and a list of people who used poisons to commit suicide. --GreyCat 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
*undecided GreyCat's argument is good but it just seems like an overcategorization still. It might conceivably be interesting to some historians to categorize people not by hometown but by what neighborhood/district/ward they were from in that town. But just because it's useful to a few readers doesn't mean it's the best choice altogether. Still not entirely convinced we should get rid of these categories though... they clearly communicate that it was a suicide, they just give extra information. --W.marsh 15:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
*Comment The subcategories need to be tagged before deletion. According to Radiant's nomination, they are are up for debate, but discussion has already noted that one of them could easily be kept. Let's keep this clean. -Freekee 18:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Just to reply to the above comment, the subcategories are obvious choices for this parent category. So if this parent is kept, then the subcategories likewise should be kept.  But if the whole notion of dividing suicides by method is a bad idea overall, then all those subcategories should be deleted since they only make sense in the context of subdividing this parent category.
replies: text: :So this is a case where I don't think you can reasonably delete only some of the subcategories and leave others intact. The fate of all these categories hinges on whether or not this parent category makes sense. Dugwiki 18:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: :First, my main point was that the subcats need to be tagged so that people are aware they are up for deletion. I've had articles deleted out from under me with no notice, just because they were children of others. It's not a nice way to lose what you worked hard on. Second, the Seppuku cat has other articles besides people who committed seppuku. So its existence doesn't seem as closely tied to it's parent. It could easily be recategorized. -Freekee 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*Weak Keep I'm going to side with GreyCat here that there is probably useful information gained by sorting suicides by method.  People who study suicides could possibly be interested in also studying the methods different people choose to commit suicide.  I also don't see a downside to these subdivisions.  The number of categories per article won't increase (you'll replace "Suicide" with "Suicide by..." in the article), and the number of articles of people who have committed suicide might be large enough to warrant subdivision of some sort.  Given that, I'd lean toward giving this category the benefit of the doubt. Dugwiki 18:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
*Listify and delete, A list is a much more efficient way (and allow more latitude in doing so) of organizing that info. Circeus 18:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
** That would be a very long and not very maintainable list. AFAIR, Wikipedia includes at least about a thousand of people listed under suicides category. Shall we make a policy of "notable suicide" and "non-notable suicide"? --GreyCat 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
*Keep all per GreyCat. Otto4711 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
*Delete and listify. I lecture on suicide and believe, it's not as easy to classify as you might think. "Suicide" should suffice. Doczilla 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
*Make into a list and then delete.  I was on the fence as this seems borderline, but Doczilla convinced me.  If it is not easy to classify, than the entries need annotation and explanation.  A list is better. -- Samuel Wantman 03:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Er, how is method of suicide not easy to classify? If the person shot herself, :Category:Suicides by firearm. If they jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge, :Category:Suicides by jumping from a height. And so on. I suppose there are cases when the person, say, takes poison and self-immolates, but are such cases where the method of suicide is impossible to determine really so prevalent that suicide method can reasonably be called "not easy to classify"? Otto4711 04:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*Keep. For those whose cause of death is difficult to determine, just leave them in :Category:Suidides. -Sean Curtin 06:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*Comment.  Category:Sallekhana doesn't fit the naming of the other subcats; perhaps this should be renamed?  Ral315 (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
*Delete. Not a defining characteristic, no clear internal structure, attempt to turn WP into online database, rather low value, maintenance headache., Also, suicide (in modern times) is not something what get publicized all over and is thus easily verifiable. Pavel Vozenilek 03:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*Delete I have seen articles with four or five death related categories, which shows that this sort of thing rapidly becomes disproportionate to its importance. Pinoakcourt 11:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Hate the categorizers, not the catrgories. If an article is inappropriately catted edit it and remove the cats, don't delete the category structure. Otto4711 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
thread_title: [[:Category:Suicides by methods]] and subcategories