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 to dying-and-rising god. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of dying or rising deities[edit]

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

Article is a POV fork and also an OR magnet. The "dying-and-rising god" idea has long been rejected by scholars, but a "list" like this allows POV-pushers to add material without citing sources and then claim "well, I'm only adding this figure to the dying gods list; I'm not claiming they rose from the dead". A move to List of dying gods might be acceptable, but can anyone find a source from the last 20 years that actually discusses the concept of "dying but not resurrecting gods" as a group? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far as I know Frazer, James George (1890) The Golden Bough is still highly regarded among scholars. --Bejnar (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The general topic is notable, albeit disputed — see "The Dying and Rising God", for example. If this is a fork or spinoff from the main article, dying-and-rising god, then reversion would be best done by merger not deletion per WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, since the topic is disputed (already essentially rejected?), no deity should be included in a "list" like this without prose elaboration and a source. The article itself already includes several examples that are discussed in some detail (and most of those are, inappropriately, not pointed out to not fit the supposed template). Inclusion of more examples in the main article might be appropriate, but inclusion of a list of names can't really be defended given the circumstances. I don't mind your WP:PRESERVE rationale, in case someone wants to actively go out and find sources and elaboration for all of these examples, but by "merge" I assume you don't mean we should just transpose the current list into the main article without further investigation? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually used this article a while back and it was helpful to me, although I agree the quality is pretty bad and there is a serious problem with the lack of elaboration since it is not exactly clear what "dying" or "rising" means for a deity. (e.g. Persephone could be argued to be dying-and-rising, or not.) Nevertheless it is a list of examples of a notable concept, and whether or not the usefulness of that concept is supported by recent scholarly literature is irrelevant. Since there are currently no "rising" deities in the list, I wouldn't oppose moving it to "List of dying deities." --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have boldly moved the article to List of dying deities. St Anselm (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, moves during AfD can cause confusion with the links at the top of the discussion, etc. Therefore, it's usually best not to do this, per WP:AFDEQ. I've now moved it back. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unscintillating (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy on request Fails WP:V, so there is nothing to merge. Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list and these are all blue links with plenty of sources in the linked articles. The first of them, for example — Tammuz_(deity) — seems to contain ample support for inclusion here. WP:V only requires sourcing for quotations and controversial statements. Pages are not required to provided sources for every word as matter of rote busy-work. Please justify your reference to WP:V as it seems inappropriate. Andrew (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I recall, a primary duty of a lede is to define its topic. As a reader, it is not my job to determine for myself the meaning of the topic. IMO, this is a (your term next) "worthless" article. If there is anything here worth salvaging, it requires a rewrite. As for lists and WP:V, you might want to look at the WT:V talk page regarding wp:prominent figures for Elizabethtown, KY. As for what WP:V requires, WP:MINREF has a good list. Yes, articles do not require sources in all cases...IMO, this is not one of them. Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content might be unverifiable, but most of it is fine. There will be many sources confirming that Jesus and Xipe-Totec die in their respective mythologies. So this is reason to improve the article perhaps, but not to delete it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRVE ("there will be many sources") applies to wp:notability, not WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asserting that most of the information there is verifiable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike inline citations, an editor's opinion that sources exist does not allow readers to verify the content of the article. Again, this is not at all like wp:notability, which is not a content policy and where wp:notability is not defined by the article. Here is text from the nutshell from WP:V:

This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up...

Unscintillating (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Readers are easily able to check the list entries by following the blue links. This process is easier than following inline citations which are often offline. The pages that they point too, such as Tammuz_(deity), readily show that the entries are just not made up. If the reader is still sceptical they can then inspect the sources on those pages. The list thus amply satisfies its main purpose of being an aid to navigation and the reader would be less well-informed without it. Andrew (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this "blue link" hypothesis for the first three, and I found that none are identified in the target article as either a "rising deity" (still no definition has been stated for this concept) or a "dying deity". Thus the hypothesis is rejected. The first one, Tammuz (deity), links to [life-death-rebirth deity], which if one knows how to find the edit history of redirects one can find the theory of why a Wikipedia editor made that connection. There is no one anywhere (I hope) that confuses Wikipedia with a reliable source, so blue links fail the policy WP:V#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it; which states, "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly." At best, once a reader has found and followed the blue link, the process of looking for a relevant citation begins anew. Thus it is no surprise that the WT:V consensus is that blue links are not an acceptable substitute for inline citations. Given that an editor has moved the current topic and we are discussing both a redirect and a new topic, this is further evidence that the original topic was made up and should be deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share your difficulty. When I go to Tammuz (deity), I see that the first section is called "Ritual mourning" and concerns the annual death and rebirth of the god. Death and rebirth seems synonymous with rising and dying and so all is clear. The first source supports this by talking of "the dead and resurrected god Tammuz (Sumerian Dumuzi)". This all seems to check out fine and there is not the slightest case for deletion. Andrew (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dying-and-rising god as being a content fork of that and also both articles are size wise small to accommodate easily. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content fork, because there is a difference between "dying-and-rising gods", and a list of dying or rising deities. Unscintillating (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Dying-and-rising god. There is plenty of scholarship on the topic; see that article. It would be nice to have a citation to a work for each deity. --Bejnar (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two topics at this AfD, neither of which is "List of dying-and-rising gods". Which is the topic that you would merge? Can the other be deleted? Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge List of dying or rising deities since renamed to List of dying deities to Dying-and-rising god. What other article are @Unscintillating: taking about? --Bejnar (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is clear. When I said "topics", those were the two. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An indiscriminate list of Gods who happen to have one common trait. Aerospeed (Talk) 16:30, 18 October 2014 (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.