Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qrsdogg (talk | contribs) at 14:21, 25 July 2011 (→Origin of death stories: m). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Origin of death stories

Origin of death stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted (by me) via Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Buran_Origin_of_Death. When, following this deletion, it was requested to be userfied I (as is my wont) happily complied. The user made a single edit, then moved it back into mainspace. Which I promptly re-userfied instead of speedy deleting it. In the meantime, another editor has written an entirely new article on the matter, now at Origin of death myth. When made aware of this new article, the user chose to make a content fork rather than work together on a merge. We cannot give the editor "benefit of the doubt" as it recomends on the content fork page, per their comments on my talk. Delete, and merge any information into the existing article. (Please note that we don't have to maintain attribution for basic facts.) Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge, but to James George Frazer. Frazer's taxonomy (which is the main topic of this article) is 98 years old, and (as I can attest, having recently research the subject -- I'm the author of Origin of death myth -- see the citations and 'Further reading' list of that article for details) there has been an enormous amount written since then on the subject. Pretty much every culture has its 'origin of death myth', and each region has its own set of dominate narratives. Concentrating almost purely on only four of these, on the basis of an outdated source, is dreadfully WP:UNDUE. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• The section about North America is independent of Frazer's work and so would not belong in Frazer's article. It is the first of more sections which would present the material geographically, which seems to be a common approach to the topic. Warden (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The section about North America" is tiny in comparison to the Frazer-based material -- hence my "almost purely" above. That section is also based on a heavily outdated source (Franz Boas is still cited in the literature, but as a WP:PRIMARY source for narratives). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The topic is notable, as we see from the numerous reliable sources. Deletion and merger, as the nominator proposes, would deny proper attribution of work done, contrary to our licensing - see WP:MAD. Warden (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merger, either to my own article, or (as I suggested) to the one on James George Frazer, is perfectly feasible without losing "proper attribution of work done", and is in fact perfectly commonplace on Misplaced Pages (we wouldn't have WP:MERGE and Help:Merging if such things didn't routinely happen). Colonel Warden's 'Keep' !vote completely fails to account for the fact, raised in the nomination, that this article is an obvious WP:CFORK (and one that fails to give a global view of the topic, and is based on an outdated source for its structure). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• The edit histories show that this article came first. Your communication with the nominator about my work shows that you were fully aware of it. Your creation of a rival article was therefore deliberately redundant contrary to WP:CFORK which states "...see if the fork was deliberate. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". It seems that you are obsessed with disruption of my editing contrary to WP:HARASS. Just this morning, you followed me straight to an unrelated AFD in order to post a contrary opinion. There are numerous recent examples of this unhealthy behaviour. Warden (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• The edit histories show that you moved this userfied article into mainspace some 19 hours after I created mine (and only an hour before it was AfDed by the closing admin of the original AfD). I am not aware of any policy forbidding the creation of an article in mainspace where a (AfD-deleted) alternative exists in user space. Whilst recreation of essentially the same article as one AfDed is a reason for WP:SPEEDY (meaning increased scrutiny), creation of a new, well-sourced article on a wider topic would seem to be unproblematical. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• The seed topic was created in mainspace back in 2007 and our edit history for the subsequent developments should correctly attribute the primacy of this early contribution. My development of the topic under the expanded title and scope of Origin of death took place on Saturday 24th July when it was placed into mainspace. Your rival fork was created on Sunday without consultation with myself or the closing admin. Your claim-jumping activity seems to be deliberate disruption contrary to WP:POINT. Warden (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• ROFLMAO! Your arguments are getting quite ridiculous. (i) The existence of an article on an (as it turned out, a too) narrow topic does not preclude the creation of an article on a wider topic. (ii) The existence of a AfD-deleted-and-so-userfied article does not preclude the creation of anything whatsoever. As it happens, your article, which is almost exclusively on the topic of Frazer's taxonomy, still covers a much narrower topic than mine. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• I would also point out that the article returned to mainspace has almost nothing (or is it nothing at all?) in common with the article which was deleted, or the version you attempted to restore.
  My motivation for the creation of Origin of death myth was not WP:POINT, but WP:SODOIT. As I stated in the original AfD, I thought that an article on a more general topic was merited, and that such an article was best written from scratch (an opinion that it would seem that you have since had forced upon you by circumstance), so I hunkered down and did it myself. As it was a new article, on a new topic, I saw nothing that needed permission from the closing admin for -- so I went ahead and wrote it, to a wide range of modern, often prominent, sources. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• The idea that your article is new seems absurd, as it was obviously inspired by this one and covers the same ground. The current focus in this one on Frazer's work is just because his analysis was quite influential and detailed and so was quite fruitful. I intended to go on to cover Pandora, the Garden of Eden &c. just as you have - I tucked away this source in the bibliography precisely because it had a good high-level summary of the matter which ranged across numerous cultures in its coverage. Warden (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• "New" is a matter of substance, of stated topic and actual content, not 'inspiration'. In any case, it would be more accurate to state that my article was inspired by the original AfD (and thus more what wasn't in the original article than what was there). And as I have previously pointed out, the wholesale replacement of material means that to call the article AfDed "this article" is more than a little misleading. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 13:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge I think that the "Origin of Death" is an important subject for mythology, being one of the fundamental myths that help explain why the world is the way it is. However, a collection of stories isn't exactly an encyclopedia article, so I think this article should be merged to Origin of death myth, where hopefully a bit of analysis will be given to the stories rather than simply relating them. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge Clearly a notable topic, but there's no reason to have this and Origin of death myth, they're basically redundant. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic)
• AfD debates