Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of death stories


 * 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   Merge Somewhere. Yeah, obviously a merge but probably best to let you guys work out where. Good luck and let me know if you need any admin tools to effect this Spartaz Humbug! 20:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Origin of death stories

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was previously deleted (by me) via 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 Concentrating almost purely on only four of these, on the basis of an outdated source, is dreadfully WP:UNDUE. HrafnTalkStalk(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). HrafnTalkStalk(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 Wikipedia (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). HrafnTalkStalk(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. HrafnTalkStalk(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. HrafnTalkStalk(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. HrafnTalkStalk(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. HrafnTalkStalk(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)
 * Keep. Both have relevant information in them.  This article is older and better named.  The other article is just one day old, and the editor could've just added stuff here.  These are not all myths, but some of them are parts of religious beliefs some native people may still believe in.  Some might just be folktales, not something people actually believe in.  So call it "stories" instead.  You can also call them traditional stories.  Origin of traditional stories of death   D r e a m Focus  15:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Dream Focus needs to comprehend the formal meaning of the word "myth", which that of "a sacred narrative", and the fact that "myth" is the term that scholars themselves use for this subject matter. I would also point out that, at the time I created Origin of death myth, there was no article to add it to -- just a userfied copy of a deleted article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the article on myth and it has different meanings. It can mean something that is not true. [] "b : an unfounded or false notion 3: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence."  It is commonly used to refer to something that is not true.  So its best to use a different term.  I think traditional stories works better than sacred narrative since not all of the stories might be sacred, but instead considered to be simply folktales by the people telling them.   D r e a m Focus  18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps turn this into a list article. I found it interesting to read.  And it is encyclopedic.  List of traditional stories related to death.  You could also have separate article for each culture's beliefs, showing what they believe in for life, death, and whatnot.  I doubt there is one group anywhere that hasn't had people studying them and publishing information about them.   D r e a m Focus  15:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge to Origin of death myth. Both are on the same general topic, but this one is just a synopsis of a few stories, something Wikipedia absolutely should not be. It's not only redundant, but ridiculous. We have, for example, an article on chain emails, but if that consisted of nothing but the "hilarious!!!" emails my grandmother forwards me all the time it'd be pretty stupid. The same applies here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As a sidenote, I do find it somewhat troubling to see Colonel Warden again misusing the need for attribution as a purely bureaucratic excuse to keep sub-par articles. Yes, attribution is important, but to suggest that a redundant or uncencyclopedic article should be kept simply to preserve it is utterly ridiculous; there are other ways to do the same that don't hurt the quality of wikipedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I've been mulling this for a couple of days, after I first edited the article.  At this point, based on the sources, and the points made by Dream, as well as the creation of similar material by Hrafn--which impacts my views of his delete !vote, lead me to conclude that this is a keep, albeit for me a weak one.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, why? I mean why leave this article, which just summarizes a few specific stories, instead of redirecting it to the one that actually covers the topic?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Both have valid encyclopedic information in them. The information doesn't need to be merged, since it wouldn't fit over there, or would have 90% of it trimmed.   D r e a m Focus  18:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)No. We just had this discussion in the recently closed AfD (for this article's previous incarnation). A synopsis of stories is not an encyclopedia article. And by what possible logic could it make sense to have an article "Origin of death stories" about four specific stories when we have an actual article that covers the actual general topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some AFDs close one way, then the same ones close another. It comes down to whatever random people show up to participate and the personal opinions of the closing administrator.  This is a different situation though.  This article mentions the topic, has references for it, and then shows a valid examples of the different types of death stories.   D r e a m Focus  21:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What Dream said. The fact that a merge-!voter implicitly, as discussed above, finds notability in the topic to my mind supports the fact that this article should not be deleted -- which is, of course, the focus of inquiry at AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. And we have that topic actually covered, unlike in this one, in the suggested merge target. This isn't a case where the merge is to a related subject or a more general topic; it's to a better article on the same thing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue.  D r e a m Focus  21:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dream Focus, why are you putting a rescue tag on this? There's another article on this topic, Origin of death myth, that actually covers the topic and shows its notability. This one is redundant; it doesn't need "rescuing".--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is about the four classifications that things can be grouped in. Did others write about the guy's findings?  Do they teach this in any colleges?  Is it in any textbooks or encyclopedias?  How many things did he group into each category total?   D r e a m Focus  00:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah ok, exactly. This is about four classifications that a person thinks they can be grouped in. That is not "Origin of death stories" in the same way that short story should not be all about Kurt Vonnegut. You're proving my point: this article is not about the stated topic, the better one is.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DF, are you really asking if people have written about Frazer's theories? Aren't you aware of their classic nature--obviously they've been modified, but its one of the foundations of the scientific study of folklore. Hrafn is absolutely right about that. His work is important enough that the work can be discussed separately from the biography, exactly as Noleander says just below.   DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * James George Frazer "is often considered to be the father of modern anthropology." This article just needs a new name is all.  Some of this guy's work are available at the Gutenberg Project, I linking to one of them.   D r e a m Focus  01:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So, keep, but not as the article this is saying it is, or the one it was originally before it was userfied, or the one you all argued it was after it was put back into the namespace. Got it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Rescue time!  *ambulence sirens* &mdash;SW&mdash; confer 05:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge - into Origin of death myth, which would be more encyclopedic than merging into James George Frazer. --Noleander (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * merge for the time being, with out deleting any detail. I think we can accept Hrafn's article (Origins of death myth) as a basic article, in which the more specific material can be at least temporarily fitted. But each individual myth, just as all of the classic myths, is ultimately worthy of a separate article. (Does this mean a separate article on every major myth of each culture to the extent there is documentation? Yes, certainly it does. Anything less is cultural bias.) I have my own opinion on the maneuvering, which shows Wikipedia gamesmanship at a very advanced level of skill on all sides.  Attempting to play around with redirects and similar article titles instead of working on content is not really constructive and exploits the weaknesses of a system relying on the vagaries of individual AfD discussions.    I think we need to see this as an attempt to avoid disruption and find a negotiated solution.   DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per Hrafn. Any reasonable individual (whose judgment is not clouded by an irrational urge to retain every byte of data ever submitted to a Wikipedia server) can see that this is clearly a content fork.  &mdash;SW&mdash; confer 05:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is referenced to one of the greatest anthropologist in history. Origin of death myth on the other hand, seems to be original research of things cobbled together.  It seems to be just lumping together everything in groups per continent, with a few examples selected to represent the beliefs of thousands of different groups, almost certainly inaccurately.   D r e a m Focus  21:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, one article attempts to give a worldwide view of the subject, while another explains the subject from the perspective of a single person whose relevant experience is apparently limited to the British empire (according to the article itself). Also, I'm still thoroughly confused as to why this article has been nominated for rescue.  Could you please indulge us all and comment on why this article should be rescued and how that could happen?  As far as I can tell, rescuing articles is about finding sources to establish the notability of the subject.  However, the notability of this subject has never come into question; the main concern is that it duplicates an existing article.  Please let us know exactly what type of rescue-work you hope other editors will come here and undertake in order to save this article from being merged with another article about the exact same topic.  &mdash;SW&mdash; confer 23:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This article was nominated for deletion. That is the focus of this discussion.  It was tagged for rescue.  It is not appropriate for another editor to delete such a tag, as Snotty did, and I concur that to do so was disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please point me to the page which tells me that I'm not allowed to remove a rescue tag from an article if I believe it was added inappropriately? The rescue tag is simply a maintenance tag.  Inappropriately applied maintenance tags are removed.  &mdash;SW&mdash;</b> verbalize 02:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We had this discussion before, and no need to bring up here. Go to the ARS talk page for that.   D r e a m Focus  16:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No thanks, I'd rather not start yet another drama-fest on the ARS talk page. I'm pretty sure that there is nothing which restricts me from removing a rescue tag which I believe in good faith to be applied inappropriately, or applied to an article for which rescue is not possible.  If you believe that I am not allowed to do that, please show me where that rule is codified.  Otherwise, please refrain from telling me what I can and can't do, or automatically labeling my actions as disruptive, regardless of their context.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> babble 17:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In practice, I only see rescue tags removed when clearly placed on an article with no hope, usually by an inexperienced editor. SW removing the tag unless its clearly in that category is obviously going to be drama-bait.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  18:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because you only normally see the tags removed under certain circumstances doesn't necessarily mean that removing them under other circumstances isn't acceptable. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> confer 20:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, it does. I'm omnipotent and infallible on these matters.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  20:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot see the point of removing a rescue tag during an Afd. Either the article will be rescued by, and the AfD will keep it, and then the tag ghas no purpose & can be removed, or it does not get rescued, and gets deleted, tag and all. As removal has no constructive purpose, it seems designed just to quarrel.    I'd say the same about removing a notability  tag during an AfD --either the article will be found notable, & the tag goes off, or the article gets deleted.    DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a rather naive viewpoint on the situation which doesn't take into consideration the fact that the rescue tag is a well-known way to get the attention of a bunch of inclusionists, who predictably come to the AfD and vote to keep it. If there is no plausible way that an article could actually be rescued (i.e. no plausible way to improve the article such that the AfD nominator's concerns are satisfied), then there is no reason for rescue tagging the article apart from attracting the attention of keep voters.  If we sit back and allow users to abuse this form of legal canvassing, then it will be abused.  If we attempt to monitor it and point out abuses, then hopefully the abuse will lessen.  I can assure you that my actions are not designed just to quarrel, as there is nothing I enjoy less than dealing with editors like Dream Focus.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> express 01:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And do you see this tag ever bringing over people who just say keep without a valid reason? You constantly make that accusation but no proof has ever been shown to back it up.   D r e a m Focus  02:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See Epeefleche's vote above. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> gossip 04:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Warden's vote, which begins by missing the point entirely and finishes with procedural wonkery. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  21:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Trim back and merge- the result of the Buran Origin of Death AfD establishes that a collection of synopses of myths are not suitable for a standalone article. Furthermore, this one is a POV fork (the point of view advanced here being "I don't like the result of the last AfD"), and POV forks are routinely deleted and/or merged back into the parent. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  05:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there anything at all that would actually be merged, or would the article just be deleted entirely?  D r e a m Focus  16:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion isn't about deletion its about where to put this content. It doesn't make sense to have two articles on the same subject, from what I see so far.  Redirect to whatever name we come up with up, merge and improve content.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  18:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Having more closely perused the relevant policy, I would like to point out (i) that WP:USERFY clearly indicates that the userfied article becomes a WP:DRAFT. I would suggest that a new article cannot be a WP:CFORK of a mere draft, and that it is the draft that becomes the CFORK on its return to mainspace. (ii) That WP:USER gives editors almost no responsibility for/authority over material in another editor's userspace. I would therefore question whether there is any obligation whatsoever to add new material to this draft, rather than to an independently created mainspace article.
 * I would question whether the rescue tag served any function in this AfD, other than WP:CANVASing.
 * <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The rescue tag optimistically believes there are people who still improve articles out there; I don't think its use here harmed anything, except in causing completely useless debates about whether it was properly placed.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r 13:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow -- the ARS has a sentient tag that's capable of forming beliefs? How amazing. I see not the slightest slither of evidence that immediate 'improvement' of this article was at any stage either (i) a matter seriously contemplated; or (ii) at issue in deciding this article's disposition (as the reason given for nomination was WP:CFORK). WP:CANVASing harms discussions -- and tends to promote a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * actually, I have seen no evidence that the presence of a rescue tag has every led in any significant number of improper articles being kept. If the article gets improved, it gets improved. If not, it almost always gets deleted. And it is not canvassing. It might even have the opposite effect. As far as I can tell, it seems very likely to attract the attention of those who disapprove of the project, and engage in attacks on the integrity of other Wikipedians. It is, after all, so very much easier to say what is wrong with an article than to make it right. Perhaps there should be a rule that we do not delete articles unless it can be shown that there is no way of improving it--and that the only acceptable way to show it is to make a documented effort,   according to the spirit of WP:BEFORE, which, though an essay, is really just a rather more elaborate restatement of WP:Deletion Policy.  My personal view, is that those who complain about rescue tags show an intention that articles should not be rescued, and I consider that destructive to the core foundations of the  encyclopedia. If people want articles deleted, and there are tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of existing articles which probably ought to be deleted, let them deal with the merits, and not the tagging. I'm not an anti-deletionist--I've  deleted about a half dozen articles today, and I'm not finished.     DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Off-topic: Those who complain about rescue tags intend only to put the entire deletion system on level ground.  The guidelines at WP:CANVAS exist for a reason, and many editors see the rescue tag as a loophole to get around those canvassing guidelines.  Whether or not you believe that that loophole is ever exploited is a common debate.  But, I would think it difficult to argue that the loophole doesn't exist.  And in my experience, if a loophole exists it will eventually be exploited.  So, consider us "rescue tag complainers" as a watchdog group who are ensuring that the loophole is not exploited.  It's not that we don't want articles to be rescued so that they are more easily deleted, it's that we want the articles to get a fair trial at AfD, not one that is biased by unbalanced attention on either side which would have normally not occurred if it hadn't been singled out for extra attention.  In particular, articles which can not plausibly be rescued should not be tagged for rescue.  How can an article not be plausibly rescued, you ask?  Well, first you have to define "rescue".  My definition of "rescue" is: to improve an article such that the AfD nominator's stated concerns are addressed.  So, if the AfD nom's concern is that an article is a content fork, it's not very likely that any improvement to the article will change the fact that it is a content fork, thus it should not be rescue tagged.  Rescue tagging an "un-rescuable" article serves no other purpose than canvassing for keep votes.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> express 17:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: In my book, rescue tags should never be removed until the XfD is resolved one way or the other. It might be notable, but I am not taking any side on whether it is actually notable. Tags of any type should not be removed until the issue is resolved. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, Notability is not the issue mentioned in the AfD rationale, so we don't even have to worry about that. -- Avanu (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't operate on things that are "in Bearian's book". It operates on consensus. And there is currently not a consensus for rescue tagging this article, since no one has indicated a plausible way which the article could actually be improved which would stop it from being a content fork (which is why it is nominated for deletion). The rescue tag has no special status over other maintenance templates, it can be removed by anyone at any time if it is believed (in good faith) that it was not applied appropriately, or not applied to an appropriate article. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> speak 23:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Origin of death myth as the article that is appropriate in scope for this content.  Sandstein   06:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note--Hrafn's probably right that a lot of this content would fit better in James George Frazer. That being said, the title is obviously a better redirect towards Origin of death myth than the Frazer one. This is gonna require some histmerge stuff.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Could probably be achieved without the complexity by (i) renaming to James George Frazer's origin of death stories (not an inaccurate title, given the bulk of the content) before the merging to James George Frazer & (ii) only then redirecting the original title to Origin of death myth (thus separating title from article history). But then again, a formal histmerge may be preferred to such methods. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And this, my friends, is why we don't needlessly complicate things by changing the scope of an article or doing everything possible to avoid deletion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.