Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Deciduous Trees (mythology)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Tree (mythology). Not that I have the foggiest what "deciduous" means, but the consensus is clear enough, and both articles are in the form of lists, not prose, so merging should be easy enough. — JIP | Talk 19:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Deciduous Trees (mythology)

This is very cleanly done, but it doesn't seem to be, well, to be saying very much. There are trees in various mythologies, yes, but the fact that they're deciduous trees doesn't really play a part. If it grows Magical Apples, then the relevant part is that it's an Apple tree, not that apple trees are deciduous. Also, maybe it's part of the magic/religiosity/whatever that this particular tree isn't deciduous? Unless the story specifies, we can't know either way. It'd be like assessing the blood types of mythological figures based on the predominant blood types of the ethnic groups in which the mythologies arose. DS 13:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nicely done but seems like a "novel interpretation", ie. original research. Kappa 15:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright merge facts with Tree (mythology) but without mentioning deciduousness unless relevant. Kappa 16:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with Tree (mythology). Pburka 15:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment:If there was a myth where the fact that trees lost their leaves and regrew them was significant, and I'm sure there must be, it would be worth mentioning somewhere. Kappa
• Merge with Tree (Mythology) as per Pburka above. Jkelly 16:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Tree (mythology)--AYArktos 00:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Kappa's most recent comment above. I give little attention to myths and legends so I don't have any good examples coming to mind. I'm not sure this title is a better place than a subsection within a mythology article or the one cited by Pburka. Barno 07:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

comment - If you cannot think of the legend though ... I can't think a legend you can't think of is a reason to keep as opposed to have a section in the existing article. The present article's content does not justify the position.--AYArktos 08:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge per Kappa. Alf ^melmac 11:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• I would agree to a merge except that I think the information here is very off-base. Since this is an AfD, shouldn't the discussion be centred around whether the information is useful, relevant or accurate? I think this should be deleted because it implies a connection (deciduous) that is simply wrong. True, the trees may be deciduous, but that is not why the cultures mythologised or iconicised them and this suggests otherwise. That is misleading. Dottore So 16:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge ··gracefool |☺ 16:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, clearly if anyone knows anything about myths or legends they'd realise these are in fact deciduous as explained by the author. Although I do agree there lacks enough sources for information. Piecraft 01:11, 26 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.