Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choking game
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Consensus is that the topic meets the general notability guidelines. Consensus is that there is more than enough reliable source material for the article. The how-to issues may be addressed through a clean-up tag. The name of the article is appropriate, as a simple search shows that the topic is called 'choking game' by the media. See, for example, Boy's death prompts 'choking game' fears. Officials won't release cause of Slinger death. Choking game seems the most likely terms by which those interested in the topic would search for the topic on Wikipedia. The name of the article might offend some, but that is no reason to delete the article and not a basis to rename the article. Merge into or with Chokehold, Erotic asphyxiation, and/or Autoerotic fatality might have been a possible outcome, but that that was not discussed sufficiently, particularly in view of the significant "choking game" reliable source material available. -- Jreferee t/c 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Choking game[edit]
No directly pertinent reliable sources, but plenty of how-to (the primary section is "How the choking game works" -- works?!?) about how to make yourself pass out and very likely die. Wikipedia is not a how-to, and this is essentially a form of (terrible) medical advice.
- Delete - as nom. 1of3 20:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WEAK keep - And by weak I mean weaker than Godzilla walking on eggshells.All the "how-to" crap has to go but this could be properly referenced and sourced. -WarthogDemon 20:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to find some sources that are not how too and I think this one is a very good start [[1]]. It is from a clearly reliabe source has information about the game that is clearly not how to in nature. It also has an video link from an investogation on the program the fifth estate which is clearly a notiable and lasts over twenty minuits. The site is also from CBC News (cbc being the network the show airs on) so it is legal downlaod so there should not be any copywright conserns. 70.48.174.186 21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and rewrite per the reasons below. -WarthogDemon 17:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - This article used to be less of a how to. Much less. There were several cases of kids dieing after playing the "game" that garnered national news attention in the States. This version shows a list of names of kids that have died from this. Each has had national news coverage. I don't see why this article should be deleted when we have articles on murder, strangulation, suicide, etc. We even have articles on suicide methods and teenage suicide. Or we have memorials such as Murder of Michelle Gardner-Quinn, LaToyia Figueroa, Sheila Bellush, etc. I know, the "this other article is here, why not this one?" arguments are weak but I have a point. Those articles can be used as research for someone looking into murders and their causes, missing people, etc. This article talks about an actual method that kids use to "get high" and some of them end up dieing from it. It could be an informative and well researched article. Also, I know this is a weak argument as well, but there are over 2 million Google hits for Choking game. There are still many active links to articles written about this fad/phenomenon/game whatever you want to call it, such as this CNN piece, this page states that "This activity has been going on for generations." and "Deaths have occurred from this activity nationwide, and in other countries around the world." This is not a localized thing. It isn't rumor. People die from this just like they do with drowning. If we eliminate or severely cut down the "how-to" info, there is plenty of information for a well referenced article. Dismas|(talk) 21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep The article has problems, the main problem is that the entire article is cast as a 'game' when it is actually seriously misguided aberrant behaviour. However, the subject matter is an important one and must be in Wikipedia. It does need work. I would suggest that we: 1. Rename it to something more technical and less attractive such as Self asphyxiation or Recreational asphyxiation, sugestions please 2. Recast this as a medical article, 2. Retain the statistics, the description and the mechanism, reinforcing in the statistics that it kills and maims many children each year 3. Cite more sources 4. Remove the 'other names' section, confirm the real alternative names from this list by research which will reduce it to about six and then incorporate these alternative names in the main text, 5. Remove the how-tos while somehow keeping the description of behaviour. It would be irresponsible for Wikipedia not to cover this when it is a common activity that causes so much misery, we just have to cover it in a better way. Ex nihil 23:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per above editors--Victor falk 03:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Create new article, delete this one We had a similar situation with a how-to article about how to make a bomb. As I tried to explain to the idiots who thought it was "censorship" to delete a how-to-make-a-bomb article (one of them wrote "'Kids could get hurt' is not a reason to delete"), editing is not a perfect solution, since the editing history has the prior versions. Yes, it's a notable topic. No, we don't need a step by step. I suggest create a new article (call it Choking Game instead of Choking game and then choke the shit out of this one. Mandsford 04:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep I see the current state of the article as a whole as relevant, important and fairly encyclopedic, excluding some sections. It just needs some editing (quite a few articles do!), but not nearly enough to warrant deletion. Probably at least half of Wikipedia's articles could use more sources. I would strongly prefer the current name as well. Things like Self asphyxiation sound more like autoerotic asphyxiation to me (IMO, of course). The way I see it Choking game is more of a phenomenon (in lack of a better word, I'm not a sociologist or a psychologist) than just an "innocent name" for self asphyxiation. The idea of starting a new article under the same name but different (incorrect) capitalization makes no sense to me. DiamonDie 11:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-write (preferably from the scratch) as per Ex nihil and Mandsford. - Mike Rosoft 14:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs some rewriting. Renaming it will simply result in the recreation of the article,unless the rename includes a redirect. (The "choking game" is probably the most common name for it --- unless you consider "suicide" as a cause of death to be a more popular name.)jonathon 09:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but permit re-creation à la Mandsford per Mandsford, this article has to go, but I'll admit that this activity is notable. Carlossuarez46 06:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that if this article were to be recreated under the same title it would inevitably acquire the same content. Actually much of the current content is quite good and accurate, it is just that the article presents itself as something that is potentially fun, a game in fact, rather than something horrible. I would be happy to try to rewrite this as a medical article and move it under a more clinical title and retain Choking game as a redirect. To make that work we would need much better stats in the introduction than we have currently, any one can contribute to that now. Ex nihil 07:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support renaming à la Ex Nihil Starting from scratch would sooner or later lead to the same problem.--victor falk 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.