Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of Death and Adjustment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 as original research and per author request, as Mattisse - who substantially rewrote it - now also requests deletion. If anyone wants to have the text back, e.g. for selective merging to some other article, I'll provide it on request. My best wishes go out to Dr Hossain also, but please understand that you will have to find some other place to publish your research. Sandstein 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy of Death and Adjustment

Philosophy of Death and Adjustment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article created to give support to the non-accredited Bircham International University, which is itself questionable. No sources, no relevance, reeks of WP:OR. Not convinced that this deserves its own article that isn't already in death. FGT2 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article cites some sources, but like the nominator says, this article was created to support Bircham IU, and the paragraph about Mohammad Samir Hossain is a big pile of OR. Anything in this article that's not OR belongs in death, or other articles --Akhilleus (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, due to the obvious motives behind the creation of the article. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without speculating about the motives for the article's creation, this still is an essay that just throws together Philippe Ariès and the cultural history of depictions of death with Elizabeth Kubler-Ross on mourning. It would be original research if it tried to reach some kind of conclusion. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PigmanTalk to me 20:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Question Since the article is newly created, shouldn't time be given to see what form it takes? The topic itself appears to be one that could be considered meaningful. Apart from the reference to Bircham IU given above as a reason for deletion, I didn't see anything in the article that would have led me to correlate this with Bircham IU or any particular institution of POV. Or is the idea to merge it as a section of Death? Bbagot 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep and nominate again if not improved in a month. The article is about a very real topic, there are researchers there besides EK-R & PA. I think it could be improved to a shorter description of the field that would not be an essay or OR, &, given a chance, I think that will happen. Birchan IU, on the other hand, is suitable for deletion & I'll nominate it when we've reached a conclusion here. This article wouldnt support it enough in any case. DGG 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This vote was requested. Unfortunately, DGG failed to mention that.[1] DGG, if you want it kept then improve it and show it to be worthy for inclusion. FGT2 01:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with Akhilleus and Chairman S. There just doesn't seem to be enough here to justify a separate article. TheRingess (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pls Help Me! Pls Dear Sir, I am Dr. Mohammad Samir Hossain from Bangladesh. I was and still am too poor like my country. I was desperately searching for support for my research and seeing my desperate wish some educators from the so called non-accreditated university Bircham International University became too kind to buy me books and appove me 100% fund. I had to beg to many but got only one. So I jumped on my dream topic - Philosophy of Death and Adjustment and start working on the Impact of different philosophies on different bangladeshi people. I did it because in the science of death such research was never conducted, but if I can do or at least raise some point for it, may be some richer and more qualified people will find their interest in it and may proceed. My back ground thought was that remedy to many mental health problem might come out from this new branch. But who would raise me with it? Cause I did not have money even to buy papers or my daily food, let alone doing vast correspondences or take help from any accreditated university. Though fortunately I enrolled at Harvard Medical School with full waiver, but that was too small period for me to do any good job. Finally I thought may be Elisabeth kubler-Ross herself might find interest in it and togather we will proceed. But my luck did not support me, cause I found the news of her funeral on the very day I found her organization's web site. So temporarily my research work stopped upto which Bircham International University helped me. So till now I dream of proceeding more on the research with supports of knowledge from all over the world, and I do not even have a web site to introduce my thoughts. So the only light of hope became this free encyclopedia, and for reference I only had Bircham International University web site. So I desperately tried to promote the introduction of the university in this encyclopedia so that the research reference gets its better base. I know my letter is big and annoying, but sometimes we do annoying things for something better, and please believe me I tried to promote Bircham International University or any other that you all object, just to facilitate the birth of a new branch of a science. Please help me in every way, you do not need to ask me anything for editing or changing. If you all fail to help in a rational manner, I do not mind and will take it as a fate. I will see my reply through the condition of the article "Philosophy of Death and Adjustment". I will love to see this baby of mine alive, but if dead, I will follow the branch of science that I am holding on.

Regards Md. Samir Hossain MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Psychiatry E-mail: hmanjur@bttb.net.bd 203.112.197.18 15:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

*Keep per DGG. I am willing to work on it some and remove any promotional material. Give it some time, then DGG will nominate it again. I am touched by the letter above. Mattisse 16:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - I am striking my vote here and revoted down below to delete. Mattisse 01:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: As usual I'm inclined to trust DGG's judgment. If this article is still worth keeping after purging it of promotional material, then great. However, I wonder, isn't this content just something that ought to be covered elsewhere, at more developed articles that we already have, such as thanatology? I'd rather hold off on !voting until I hear some feedback on that question. — coelacan talk — 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have improved the article. It is wikified and referenced. This article is addressing the psychology of death from a scientific point of view. Wikipedia has no such articles now. Further, the research added by the gentleman from Bangladesh is on non western subjects. I am sure there is western research on the subject, as psychology/psychiatry has moved from philosophy to being scientifically based -- I just don't have time to find it now. Mattisse 18:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Is the current name the right name for the article? — coelacan talk — 19:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Wondering that myself. FGT2 00:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a way of saving this article from deletion and simultaneously addressing the issues of original research, but it will take a really large overhaul. My suggestion, though it might be a stretch, would be for a new article to be created addressing Dipesh Chakarbati's ideas in Provincialising Europe, which is being used as a text for both Historiography and Cultural Histories studies. This would be a long process--a person would have to read this, and also consider the academic reviews of it (access to Jstor or a long time in a library), then create an article specifically about postcolonial thought and historical differences within which the conflicting ideas of death could then be addressed. OR, the entire article could be re-named History of Death as a sub-article of death but would have to include lots of other examples that might not square with your own research. Keeping it within the psychology section as an emerging area of interest doesn't work either way, unless you can find some academic journals addressing it. Or, get your ideas at least mentioned in a journal. --Chalyres 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - You may be right. But this article is one day old. It needs a chance to evolve. I added four or five research articles and references to it for now. No one would ever create a stub if they had to go through the process you are suggesting in order to put a one day old article on Wikipedia. I agree it is a complicated subject and could go many directions. It turns out there are many research-based articles available and it is a very active field of inquiry in many disciplines including medicine, psychology, and sociology, with very important treatment and policy implications. Mattisse 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The article isn't only a day old. In fact, it is a recreation after a speedy afd. FGT2 23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the "cleaned up" article doesn't make sense, and fails to address basic clarity and importance. The person above claims its science, but the article describes philosophy. The article purports to be supported by scholars, but those scholars do not mention the article subject matter/title.
  • The person who created admits he made the topic up and wants to promote it. This article lacks value. Chalyres, as an avid reader of the subaltern school, what on Earth does Chakrabarti have to do with this? This article was created with promoting a fraudlent school. While this might have to do with postcolonial thought there is no sourcing to prove that. FGT2 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There are TWO GOOGLE HITS for "Philosophy of Death and Adjustment." One of those hits is this article! FGT2 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I do think the title is wrong. The article is not about a philiosophy of anything. It is more about attitudes about death, how they vary among ethnic and other groups, the impact of these attitudes on personal adjustment and ability to deal with trauma (the original article), on public policy (e.g. when to euthenise), how doctor's attitudes toward death affect patient care, how to treat bereavement etc. Mattisse 00:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. This article is about death, which we have an article on. I am not convinced this derves its own article. FGT2 00:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment The article has been substantially re-edted, and those who had questions about the earlier version might want to re-examine it. There remains one unsourced paragraph, to be removed as OR if published source not found. (& not finding a 5-word philosophical phrase on Goggle doesn't say much--but a better title should be possible; but I think the p. shouldn't be moved during this debate.) There were more knowledgeable people here to help on this article, and I waited a day or two in order to defer to them.
I would have commented on this AfD whether requested or not--it's the sort of topic I often comment on--though I might not have seen it as soon. And I do not necessarily vote the way requested; there are even 1 or 2 connected articles here I will propose for deletion myself. I have sometimes even improved an article a little & still voted for delete if I couldn't improve it enough. DGG 00:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I read the article, and I question the validity of its content in relation to the title. What do the sources and content have to do with the title? The article deals with death, for example, the first citation is for "death is an event to be postponed." This is not a philosophy. It deals with death in certain cultures, which is on wikipedia already.FGT2 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I have changed my vote to delete. The article can be written under a more appropriate title. Since I basically wrote it as it stands now, I have all the reference and source material and can write an appropriate research-based article. The title seems to be so extremely upsetting to people that rather than just simply changing the title, I'm in favor of deletion as a solution to end the misery here. Mattisse 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Some elaboration - Dear all, Its me the researcher of the Article - Philosophy of death and adjustment. I will briefly inform you about the main event of the research and the theme behind it.

From very early childhood of mine I could not accept that my parents will die someday. After some years I could not accept the truth that all of my near ones will die someday. I was going through some depressive disorder and having treatment. When I completed my MBBS, I saw that many of the troublesome thoughts and events on this earth relates to existance and preventing from ceasing to exist. In market, in history and even in human life. But death in life is such a sensetive event we merely keep in our mind in everyday life that we will die someday. But our mental health and overall civilization on this earth is very much maintained and managed after this very truth in our subconscious mind. I needed a remedy for this subconscious problem for myself and any other people who suffers like I do. So I started to read and search for articles that describes how a man can adjust with the universal truth of death, not when ill or dying or old, rather in every day healthy life. Surprisingly I found none on it and I decided to do my research on this subject. Then Primarily I defined death and the main theme was for most of us was "ceasing to exist". If death were not such ceassation, then it would not be such a disturbing element for human psychology. So I started to search the philosophies of death. I found the Arie's one, the Kubler-ross one etc. But none of them could finish in a descent line of accepting death for a person who is healthy and not ill. The only way was to eradicate the philosophy of cessation from the death philosophy. Then I realised that only religion enlightens upon life after death, that is death is not the end at least, but no scientific study on it that can be brought and used for psychiatry. So I took 5 groups of muslims in Bangladesh and one end of them had the highest belief in life after death and the other end had little or no belief in life after death. Then I assed their mental health and found that the more one believes in death as non-ceassing event, the more healthy he or she is mentally. Also I used the kubler-ross theme to evaluate the five groups' capacity to accept death. Surprisingly, by a scale (according to KR research), the most adjusted ones were also those who took death as an event but not a cessation. Thus without advocating for religion, I showed that if the concept or the philosophy of death is maintained as something like an event, not an end, then a person can remain healthier in respect of mental health and also adjust with death more easily. I had an "Excellent" grade after the evaluation of my research evaluator. Now a days, while I give psychotherapy to patients who are not adjusted with the truth of death in their physically healthy life, I use this concept for those who believe in any religion showing death as an event with an afterlife and I find excellent prognosis in their treatment. Now I hope you understand why I am so much dedicated and serious about the article"Philosophy of Death and Adjustment". The name of the article means nothing to me, what matters is that it is a huge resourse for the future of psychiatry. Also I will be very glad if you edit my article more and more and ask me any question you need to know.

Regards Samir 203.112.218.36 05:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear friend, all of this is very interesting, & consolidates a lot of material I have heard of but not understood, but the WP is not the place to present the OR. The place to present your study is in a peer-reviewed journal; the place to present your analysis is in a scholarly review. That people with some religious views accept death is understandable, but the details are interesting. That done, then a summary for general readers based on these public source should go here. If the culmination of your articles depends on this work, you should withdraw it for now. DGG 05:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Finally the research was examined, evaluated and graded (Excellent) by the academic board under -

Dr. Ferran Suay Lerma

Teacher & Researcher at Universidad de Valencia - Spain

Doctor in Psychology Universidad de Valencia - Spain (1989-1993)

Licentiate in Psychology Universidad de Valencia - Spain (1981-1986)

Regards Samir203.112.199.121 12:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: An article must contain WP:RS that prove notablity. Also is Lerma from Bircham International University the school that claims to operate in Spain, but has no license there? FGT2 05:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Should be renominated in a month, work should be carried out so to make it NPOV, wikified, proved notability and encyclopedic.--Sharz 07:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC) P.S Article creator should no that Wikipedia maintains a policy of "No Original Research".

For FGT2 only-

I believe I have introduced Dr. Larma as an acceptable person, not like the accussed Bircham International University. Any further detail should be obtained by those who needs that. But I will request for not discussing anything odd or suspiciously about Dr. Larma just for an ordinary article or person like myself.

For all-

Thanks to all for so much discussion that helped me know many things. I will humbly request all honorable editor to erase or move the too much(!?) controvertial article, if needed, to stop this very hard discussion for me. If any of you are interested to know about my full introduction, you will find it in any good library of UK or USA in the Dictionary of International Biography, 33rd edition published from Cambridge, UK. Please visit the web site of the Bircham International University to know all about it. If you think that there is any lie in them, you might want to take any legal step against them too and I am saying it because I should be at least this much sensible for any educational institution, I hope you all should agree that one must be given the chance to speak for himself(or itself) before he or it is given any introduction full of hatred. So far all I have heared from this discussion about BIU is borrowed from some sourse other than BIU itself. Also the trend of such discussion is good but should be more polished for all the contributors. We, the ordinary people from all around the world want to see wikipedia with due respect, not like the Bircham International University. I want to say good-buy on this matter leaving all in all yours' hand.

Regards

Samir 203.112.199.242 09:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article is admitted by the author to be OR. The small number of non-OR sentences may be consolidated into pre-existing articles on death, grief and mourning as appropriate; the rest should go. We should also note the author's request to delete, though this is of course not binding on us. WMMartin 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Degrees from certain nonacreditrd universities are accepted in many U.S. States. The link on the Wikipedia article reference above Bircham International University show that degrees from universities such as this one are accepted in most states. Since this article, the first entry written by a newbie from Bangladesh, was slated for deletion on the day it was created, I feel this is a case of WP:BITE. I have offered to help this person with his article and have found him to be very reasonable and kind. He is educated in a field similar to mine. I am acquainting him with Wikipedia policies. Whether you delete this particular article or not here does not matter. I am sorry this new user was treated in this manner, without kindness or respect, and I apologise to him on behalf of all of us. --Mattisse 13:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: What link at Bircham International University are you talking about? Several links call this place fraudulent such as this story "Oregon education officials describe Bircham International as 'totally bogus'." Or according to Texas it has "No degree-granting authority from Spain" (the place it operates from). Please post a link that shows this place to be legitimate. Also I fail to see how this person was treated without respect. FGT2 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment To me discussions at this level of detail are inappropriate here on an article created a few days ago by a first time user and nomimated for ADF immediately after. I struck out part of my comment above upon realising this. To me this is a case of WP:BITE. The user has been polite and willing to learn. I do not understand why more understanding and kindness is not being accorded him here. Mattisse 13:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Looks properly sourced and relevant to me, thanks to Mattisse and DGG. Not sure why it was nominated less than 24 hours after creation - someone must have been a tad overzealous. DanielC/T+ 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am sympathetic to User:Mattisse's comments concerning WP:BITE. It is also a very serious question as to how one kick-starts a new academic field. 80+ years ago, you just did it, put your name on a door and started offering degrees. Eventually, maybe much later, you were accredited, but that is a political process that has evolved only "recently". However, what rankles me is the user:talk spam which (a) (unfortunately?) resembles the Nigerian money-transfer scam which has now mutated in many many forms (b) name-dropped Harvard but was enrolled there too short of time (??) and (c) name dropped Kuebler Ross but found her website "on the date of her funeral" -- she died 3 years ago, (e) refers not at all to its cousin subjects (geriatrics, gerentology, ageing, etc) and (d) the pleading tone. In the end, though, it's business. It's an "interesting topic" and should not, according to the "rules", have been created. And I do not think it was too hasty to suggest "delete". Finally, the content of the article can easily be included in other appropriate articles gerentology, ageing, death and dying, etc. Please, Samir, publish something somewhere (there are on-line sites where you can do this), then an article can be made. --Otheus 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For Otheus

1)Samir was a very new user of wikipedia. He made mistakes in his several steps.

2)He only got scholarship for 12 courses at harvard in honor of a dead indian professor, and no further courses were offered from harvard for anyone after those 12. He did not have the money to pay and study.

3) Samir does not know why he was born on the day of his birth day cause he never wrote his fate, same was the case of finding the funaral date of K-R.

4) Samir had to struggle till now by pleading and begging, cause he is a genuine citizen of Bangladesh where sometimes human feel happy to be alive let alone with honor and dignity and scopes for free aducation.

5) Finally this article is too young in the science to have a name for itself or tagged with others. But whether you like it or not, you know that you will die someday though you may be young and healthy now and I will never believe that one accepts this truth very gladly unless he does not understand death or sadly he may be insane. So we need to pull this thorn out of our throat, because, we can't pull death out, even when we are young and healthy.

Regards

Samir himself

203.112.199.125 09:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Reaffirm Delete: Dear Samir, Wikipedia is an excellent way for people around the users to discover knowledge. But in order for Wikipedia to be respected as a repository for such knowledge, there must be certain guidelines, restrictions, rules, if you will. One of these key guidelines is that Wikipedia articles should be based on existing material, referenced by reputable sources. You, Dr. Samir, are trying to become such a reputable source, is that not so? I believe with your persitence, and by focusing your energies in the proper venue, you will succeed! And when you do succeed, then the demand for such an article will follow. Meanwhile, keep in mind what Wikipedia is, and more imporatantly, what Wikipedia is Not. Best Wishes --Otheus 03:52, 22 February 2007 (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.