Wikipedia:Don't assume lasting significance for instances of self-harm
 | This is an essay on notability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia should not contribute to the publicity of suicide or self-harm before lasting significance can be demonstrated. |
Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability in the world. For many events, if there might be lasting significance, we often err on the side of considering them notable. Wikipedia is popular enough that the act of retaining an article may even play a role in its continued significance. For an act of self-harm committed, in some part, to publicize oneself or one's ideals, Wikipedia should not assume lasting significance. Wikipedia should not contribute to the attention given to the incident when policy doesn't demand it. When it comes to self-harm, lasting significance should be demonstrated before we have an article.
Background
[edit]Wikipedia's notability guideline for events includes a section about breaking news, including two primary pieces of guidance: "don't rush to create articles" and "don't rush to delete articles." The latter, known best by its shortcut, WP:RAPID, is often cited at articles for deletion as a reason to keep an article on a recent event, based on the possibility that it will continue to receive coverage in reliable sources and as such should be given the benefit of the doubt.
The extent to which we can predict lasting significance varies. With some topics, it becomes clear quickly that they will have lasting significance so we keep them, mostly uncontroversially. With other topics, it seems quite certain that they won't have lasting significance, and they are deleted. In between those is a very large gray area of events which may or may not have lasting significance, and Wikipedians differ regarding the extent to which we should err on the side of either keeping and revisiting later or deleting and allowing recreation later.
Media coverage of self-harm
[edit]There is considerable research on the role of the media in influencing and/or motivating acts of self-harm. It is uncontroversial that there are people who view taking their own lives or harming themselves as a way to attract media coverage to their acts or their beliefs. As one of the most popular websites in the world, Wikipedia plays a significant role in coverage of these events, amplifying existing coverage and contributing to a story's prominence directly. This would not be the only area where Wikipedia acknowledges its own influence and potential for harm; the biographies of living people policy, for example, requires users to be particularly cautious in the application of certain Wikipedia policies and guidelines to content when writing about a living person.
Do not presume notability for incidents involving self-harm or suicide
[edit]Wikipedia should cover notable acts of self-harm just as it should cover notable acts of violence, but users should be particularly cautious in the application and interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines to these articles. Because Wikipedia follows what other reliable sources pay attention to, Wikipedia will inevitably have articles on incidents that have lasting significance in reliable sources. Wikipedia should not, however, contribute to the publicity of these such acts before lasting significance can be demonstrated. In those cases, it is insufficient and potentially harmful to simply argue to keep "per WP:RAPID".