Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Are There Myths?/10 Mythical Creatures of North America


 * 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 delete and userfy. The article has already been copied to the user subpage User:Wikiproject2006/article for merge subpage. —Doug Bell talk 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why Are There Myths?/10 Mythical Creatures of North America


Likely that this article is an essay of original researchLethaniol 10:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If it's not OR, it's certainly an essay and almost certainly covers ground better covered elsewhere. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. and BigHaz. --Folantin 10:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Movementarian (Talk) 10:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Incorporate all the info into their respective articles. -- さくら 木 11:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. On top of all the above, it has an incredibly stupid title. The Crying Orc 13:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this was, in the end, rather a bad idea for an article. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate that everyone has their own opinions about what I have come up with but wouldn't it be more useful if you gave helpful suggestions to make it better rather than "it needs to go"? Thank you to the person who suggested finding other articles along the same line to "Incorporate" information I have found into. That is very useful and I will be looking into that. (left by User:Wikiproject2006)


 * Merge then Delete after transferring useful information to the appropriate articles (e.g. Chupacabra) Regarding why it's up for deletion instead of improvement per votes so far (if I understand their reasoning) is that this reads as a secondary source based on (very well cited) primary sources, which is not really what wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, that reports as much as possible on research published in peer-reviewed academic secondary sources (journals, conferences, news sources, etc).  Hope that helps (and apologies to other editors if I misunderstood their OR based votes). -Markeer 17:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge then DeleteYes, Thank you...This is very helpful. I appreciate that you have taken the time to give constructed criticism and very useful information. (left by User:Wikiproject2006)


 * Delete per nom -- Whpq 17:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge then Delete seems to be the best option.--Isotope23 20:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest Deleting the page but leaving a copy as a subpage of User:Wikiproject2006, so that it can be worked upon and then bits transferred to relevant articles as needed? It is just that working on this article and merging it into others might take quite a bit of work. Cheers Lethaniol 00:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd second that suggestion. Original Research or not, the author obviously put in a great deal of effort sourcing and footnoting this article, which could only enhance those articles it would be merged into.  As I'm sure we're all aware, a lack of citation is an all-too-common problem and it would be a shame for all that research to completely go to waste. -Markeer 02:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Subpage...I really appreciate this option. I was dreading the issue of time and the moving of information. Please correct me if I am wrong but now I just need to copy the information into User:Wikiproject2006/subpage and it will all be saved under my user name then delete the page all of this talk is about?  Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiproject2006 (talk • contribs)
 * You did the move to a subpage correctly... and don't forget to sign you comments on talkpages, AfD discussions, etc with --~ .--Isotope23 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that will work fine, but only copy and paste to that subpage (or another subpage of whatever name you prefer), don't delete the original article under discussion. I'd suggest doing that now in case the article vote ends up for deletion, so that you can retrieve useful work as needed.  By the way (since I'm guessing you are relatively new to wikipedia, apologies if that's incorrect), deletion isn't yet certain as Article for Deletion discussions are kept going for at least a week before any final decision is made.  This deletion process can seem a bit harsh, but it's not arbitrary or immediate.  The idea behind it is to seek consensus from a variety of editors before anything drastic is done. As you are obviously interested in well-researched topics and you express yourself well, please don't let this discussion (or the final decision, regardless of what it is) discourage you from continuing to help enhance Wikipedia -Markeer 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for this help. This is my first go at posting here and I appreciate those of you who have clearly expressed yourselves and offered the help I obviously need.  I will continue to look for those places my work fits into via my subpage and wait to see what happens with this issue.  Wikiproject2006 11:45 am (PST), 22 November 2006


 * Delete I noticed some very obviously bad spelling errors like "ones" instead of "one's". This convinces me the essay is poor. Anomo 03:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and Delete per above. There are many references in this article which certainly shouldn't go to waste. AdamDobay 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and Delete per above. I also agree with this comment. Perhaps the tie-in of myths and dreaming could be merged into the dream article, and there are no dream symbolism sub categories as of yet. SriMesh
 * Keep so that the originator ofthis page can improve it. I think there are WP articles for each of the myths, tho not all of them empasisize the N Amer context. There are more to be "found", and if someone wants to do such a list in a proper way, it would be a good project. the first half of the article is another matter, and should probably be addd to some appropriate page, but dont ask me which.
 * Perhaps what we need is a probation period for articles---"you have 2 weeks to redo this and get it right." DGG 05:23, 28 November 2006 (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.