There seems to be a misunderstanding -- this article has been AfD'd. As distinct from having a merge requested. As such, a rescue tag is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going point by point (because I know someone's going to disagree with my reasoning)

Our main focus is on articles on notable subjects going through AfD that:

• Need references
• Are written poorly
• Lack information readily available
• Need cleaning up.

1. This article is a collection of selected "Origin of death" stories. It is a summary of each story with a little generic section about Native Americans tacked on at the end.
2. There are references on this article.
3. The article already has readily availbe information.
4. This article is not being nominated on the grounds that it needs to be cleaned up.

Now let's look at the reasons not to use the rescue tag

What the Rescue template is not for:

• Articles that are not in the AfD process, including articles that have been deleted, even if you have archived the content. You might post {{findsourcesnotice}} to the article's talk page as a way to suggest where editors may find sourced material for the article.
• Articles that, no matter what improvements were made, would be considered inappropriate per WP:What Wikipedia is not. Use common sense, and feel free to ask what other editors think on the project talk page.
• Articles that after reasonable attempts, still cannot currently be reliably sourced.
• Userpages.

The primary disqualifying item is the improvements clause. Using common sense, there is a reasonable merge suggestion (an article that was created while this was in userfication) that covers the topis in a more general manner (Origin of death myth) that is well souced.

The usage of this tag is being discussed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please consider not restoring the rescue tag until a consensus has been established. Hasteur (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you find this at? Just making up things suddenly? And not everyone agrees it should be merged. Otherwise it'd be a merge discussion not a delete discussion. It is unlikely a merge would retain any of the information here anyway, it just ending with a redirect. The Rescue tag was used properly, I trying to bring over more people who might know something about Anthropology, or have the time and ability to find information about this. And if we don't restore the tag until the dispute resolution is done, then it'll be too late, the AFD ending well before then. Dream Focus 19:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Removing_tags#Removing_tags If the person placing the tag has explained his or her concerns on the talk page, then anyone who disagrees should join the discussion and explain why the tag seems inappropriate. If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed. If there is disagreement, then normal talk page discussion should proceed, per consensus-building. There is no consensus to remove the tag. Dream Focus 19:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ecx1)There existed no consensus to add the tag to begin with as the tag never qualified for the original reasonings and hit the reasons to not add it. The suggestion to merge is at the AfD page as a discussion between Warden and Hrafn. The fact that a significant consensus to merge the articles means that this one isn't going to go away, simply going to be merged and redirected. Therefore the Rescue tag is inappropriate as it would take a very big shift of consensus to change the outcome. Hasteur (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry, but if you truly believe that Epeefleche's weakly stated oppose as stated above is enough to keep the tag then I guess there's no counter arguments that are going to cause you to change your concrete set mind. Hasteur (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It has never taken a "consensus" to add the tag, just a good faith placement by an editor. This has been the rule since late 2007.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, there are several users whose opinion in this case is that the rescue tag was not applied appropriately. That has to count for something. The rescue tag is not immune to criticism. —SW— ^converse 21:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes it is. We developed a vaccine for that.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has IDHT been cleared by the FDA? Reyk _YO! 21:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rescue tag was used properly, I trying to bring over more people who might know something about Anthropology... If that was the case, then a message to a relevant anthropology wikiproject would have sufficed. A general message to inclusionists doesn't accomplish anything other than bringing inclusionists to the AfD discussion. —SW— ^yak 21:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't deletionists also regularly stalk pages tagged for Rescue just to prove a point? Dream Focus 21:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Every day you prove more and more that it's not worth anyone's time to deal with you in any way. I can say with absolute certainty that Wikipedia is worse off with you around. —SW— ^converse 21:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So we have a group of editors, some of which regularly make accusations and insults against the Article Rescue Squadron, determined to remove the Rescue tag from this article. Snottywong, Avanu, Hasteur, and Yaksar are against it being on this article. Dream Focus, Epeefleche, and Milowent so far saying it should be here. Dream Focus 21:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I think it would be fine to use the tag, as long as it's done in a fair manner that addresses the points raised by the AfD nominator. In this case, it's super clear, and this would be a unique opportunity for the Rescue Tag, but instead of just addressing the criticism, it's the old "us v. them". It's silly, but easily remedied, it's just up to the tagger to decide to fix it. -- Avanu (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DreamFocus, would you like to strike your attack on several editors in good standing? I can't speak to the other editors, however this is the first time that I've ever interacted with the rescue template and the Article Rescue Squadron. Your comments and continual attacks on the bona fides of other editors has turned this conversation and the one at AfD into a Deletionist versus Inclusionist spitball fight rather than improving the article. Hasteur (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think its time to pull the fire alarm to stop this silliness.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your first time involved in this. No idea where you came from. But there is no such thing is "good standing". You have people that spend months arguing on the Article Rescue Squadron's talk page trying to change the rules to weaken it, and who constantly insist it is used for canvassing Keep votes as Snottywong has once again done, despite there no evidence ever found to prove this. If active contributing members of a Wikiproject believe their Wikiproject could help with an article in any way, they have the right to tag it. Dream Focus 23:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if active contributing members of Wikipedia believe that a maintenance tag has been inappropriately applied to an article, they have a right to remove it and ask for justification before it is reapplied. You have not provided adequate justification for the rescue tagging of this article. You have not identified what specific tasks could be performed on this article that would help resolve the specific issues addressed in the AfD nomination statement, namely that the article duplicates the topic of an existing article. I'm not sure how many other ways I can say the same thing, and in how many other places it can be said. —SW— ^prattle 23:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by good standing is "Under sanctions or suspensions of editing privilages in relation to placement of tags". It should be very clear that multiple editors are explaining reasons why the rescue tag does not apply, according to ARS's own guidelines. So I ask you again Would you like to strike your attack on several editors in good standing? Hasteur (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Everyone on that AFD seems to agree its not appropriate to delete the article, it merits merging/improving/whatever. Why can't we just remove the AfD tag and ask for justification before it is reapplied? Because that's not how AfD works, and that's not how the rescue tag works.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Its kind of hard to know how 'everyone' agrees if you remove the AfD tag immediately. On the other hand, its immediately clear when a person tags an article for rescue but leaves off a rationale for how to rescue it. -- Avanu (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  AfD is a protected procedure and policy of the community. The rescue template tag is either a wikiproject banner (and should be treated as such) or it's a maintanance template (and should be treated as such). The intention claimed for placing the template in this case was to attract attention to the article by anthropologists. I see nothing in the multiple attempts that does not draw the attention of anthropologists to this article therefore the usage of the template was inappropriate. The guidelines for using the template (and when to not use the template) were also very clear and not met for this article. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• you are wrong wrong wrong wrong. but i'm just going to improve articles like i normally do. see, you look at an article like Dark Horse (2011 film) and try to defend it being tagged as non-notable. I actually make it an article worthwhile to the human race in short order.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  So I make sure I understand, you're following me to other pages where you have no involvement in (in volation of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:HARASS) and levying personal attacks against me. I followed the policies and best practices of Wikipedia. I strongly suggest that you redact your blatant personal attack. Hasteur (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to be clear, I looked at your last few edits and improved an article where you reinstated the removal of a notability tag. I made the article better. Please sue me for that horrible horrible attack upon you.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 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) 21:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Please clarify for me as to the Rescue tag's status (Maintantance template or special template). Please also clarify which sections of the usage of the tag you believe the article qualifies under. Finally please explain your disregard of the discussion already occuring on the talk page (as you allude to being aware of it in your revert summary) Hasteur (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. —SW— ^express 22:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of {{find}} at the top, this page is entirely a dispute over the rescue tag. I think that this page should be moved to WT:Articles for deletion/Origin of death stories. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Although this whole thing is such a mess at this point that it won't really change much.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object for the reason that it is my understanding that disputes/discussions regarding tag template usage for the article are supposed to remain on the article's talk page. Hasteur (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about this, but I think that very little of that discussion is relevant to this article's content. Some of it isn't even useful to the AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD has been closed as "merge somewhere". The two obvious targets are Origin of death myth and James George Frazer. Given the greater overlap between it and the latter (this taxonomy is a fairly important part of the writing of the latter, but only a very small part of the worldwide variation of the former), it would seem to be a choice between a heavily pared down merger with the former, and a lightly pared down merger with the latter (alternately a merge-some-to-both path might be taken). Thoughts? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the merge-some-to-both path. It seems like there is valid content for both articles. —SW— ^babble 16:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts where? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any specific direction, I've merged all the Frazer stuff to James George Frazer & the remaining 'North America' section to Origin of death myth. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]