Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy)

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 of the debate was uhhhhh...no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool (African philosophy)

Neologism, 0.5 sources. One obscure book uses the word "Cool" but isn't clear it ever calls it an "African philosophy".

Article faced AfD but was given reprieve to find more sources. Four months later is still lacking sources.

Fails google test.

Leads in with weasely "Cool is considered by several notable professors", none of which are mentioned.

Creator acknowledges this is a POV fork*: "Because people whined and groused about the information regarding its African/African-American origins, I separated out the African/African-American subject matter from cool and began Cool (African philosophy)" (Deeceevoice)

Archived previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy) (archive)

Justforasecond 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't do that. Use {{afdx}} or edit the template after substing it. Now anything that linked to the old debate links to this one. Kotepho 19:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see instructions on how to do renominate -Justforasecond 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep bad faith nomination. - FrancisTyers 18:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith. Invalid reason to keep. Justforasecond 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This vote violates WP:POINT and WP:AGF.--Urthogie 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Erm, no it doesn't — please try and remain civil and refrain from making unfounded accusations; - FrancisTyers 08:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I see Friday has suggested my vote not be counted. If the closing admin is suspicious of my motivation I suggest he/she reads both the talk page of this article and this section of DC's RfAr. Particularly see comment 5. - FrancisTyers 09:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I would concur with User:FrancisTyers. I wasn't going to mention it, but since this particular thread has come this far, let me state that I, too, believe, this is a bad-faith AfD. It's no secret there is no love loss between JFAS and me -- to the point that I repeatedly have asked him not to post to my talk page. I believe the matter that precipitated this AfD is the issue of JFAS's incessant and appallingly tacky/vicious edit warring at Ronald Dellums. He can't stand the man -- a point he makes perfectly clear on his user page.
  • March 13, I was approached by an anonymous editor to stop by Ron Dellums.[1] There was no mention in the anonymous post made of User:Justforasecond. I did so, made a few edits and then decided to post the matter of JFAS's (and others') constant edit warring on the Admin Notice Board[2]. (Other intervention did not succeed in deterring JFAS, so the article currently is in a locked status. JFAS subsequently was blocked April 5 for his continuing conduct.[3])
  • A few days later, I made the following post at Talk:Ron Dellums directed at JFAS, informing him I had edited the existing version of the section dealing with Dellums' family and that his attacks on Dellums "would not be tolerated."[4] Note the date and time of the post: Revision as of 13:14, 11 April 2006.
  • At 18:28 that same day, JFAS moved to archive the old Afd for Cool (African philosophy) (the second or third attempt to obliterate this article, the last having been closed at the end of December -- incessant and ongoing)[5] and immediately thereafter, at 18:31, opened up this latest attempt to erase it.[6]
Even putting all the bad blood between JFAS and me and all that garbage about the RfA aside, it's pretty obvious who has acted in bad faith here. Deeceevoice 09:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI - Deeceevoice's Arbcom case: "Deeceevoice is reminded of the need to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability. and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In addition, her attention is directed to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Passed 8-0" CoYep 13:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
My attention is directed where it needs to be at the moment, thank you very much, CoYep. Perhaps you might want to return to the list of sources I provided and direct your attention there -- since your failed attempts to dismiss them outright[7] seem truly to have missed the mark.[8] :p Deeceevoice 18:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No comment on the motivations behind the nomination, but there is an actual issue here that needs attention from experienced editors: Is the notion of a whole article on cool as an African philosophy an example of giving undue weight to one (or maybe more) academic(s)? We can all agree there's overlap between this article and Cool (aesthetic). If this is a POV fork of the former, it needs to be merged back in. However, I still don't think the Afd is a good idea- the important issue here is far better off being discussed on the talk pages, as has already been done here and there. Friday (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: How many months should an article and its contributors be given to add sources? Hyacinth 19:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: as long as it takes. If there is unverifiable information in the article -- as with any other, then delete that information. Let the article remain in that state -- with a stub or other tag appropriate to its condition -- until someone has the time and interest to improve it. I mean isn't that the way Wikipedia is supposed to work? (Duh.) And that's what's happened to the piece so far; whole chunks have been obliterated.
But it hasn't stopped there. This article has been under constant attack. This is the third or fourth attempt to obliterate it, the last effort concluding as late as the end of December. Here, the article has been attacked for lacking information I previously had inserted in the article, but which was hacked out of it! :p And there were subheads delineating the widely accepted components of the aesthetic that were left blank (as is done in lots of articles on this website), inviting input and further development as a means of helping to form a general framework for the piece. They, too, were deleted.
The so-called "weaselwords" of the opening paragraph are a rewrite -- one I did not do. One of the people complaining about the condition of the piece did that. I left it as a concession. And, yeah. I, too, think the wording sux. :p
Returning to the question, the fact is no article on Wikipedia should depend upon the time and attention of a single editor for its development. Nor should it be obliterated simply because no single editor has worked tirelessly on it. People grouse about the page. If they spent a fraction of the time, energy and attention constructively editing the piece (not just hacking away at it) and contributing information that they've so far spent complaining about it or, ad seriatim, trying to get it deleted, hell, it'd be a freaking featured article.
Has anyone thought to put it up for article improvement, as is, I believe, fairly common practice around here when the desire is to improve an article? Has it been suggested for the project concentrating on articles treating Africa? Gosh. What a concept. The answer to both questions is no. Because beyond the criticism (some of it justified; I have not had the time or the inclination to concentrate on it) of the article itself, the hostility of detractors (as is evidenced by those who continue to focus on attack Thompson's unassailed scholarship completely without foundation, while completely ignoring the writings of others) has been directed toward the editor and/or the very subject itself. One of the primary detractors below has had the unmitigated gall to assert, "But many people don't recognize the [A]frican aesthetic as existing." Yet he so far has failed to produce a single, learned individual (biased opinions born of ignorance or animus don't count) who would make such an absurd and possibly racist statement. There is no doubt that indigenous African peoples, as with all other members of humanity, have aesthetic standards and belief systems. Further, there is ample evidence, and considerable scholarhip that supports, that there is, indeed a collective cool aesthetic commonly held across traditional, indigenous African societies that has far-reaching implications with regard to how individuals comport themselves, how they interact, that governs/mediates both everyday/pedestrian and artistic expression. That aesthetic merits an article -- just as Japanese aesthetics merits one.
This article has not been treated the way other articles on the website generally are treated. The far more interesting and legitimate question that begs a proper answer here is, "Why?" :p Deeceevoice 22:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Why? Because it is a POV fork filled with OR. No one denies there are aesthetics in Africa (continent-wide aesthetics are in question), but this article is about the supposed African "philosophy" known as "Cool". Justforasecond 17:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Good question, it doesn't seem to be improving. At this point my opinion is to delete this as a POV fork of Cool (aesthetic). If people want to add more on this version of "cool" into the main article, they can certainly do so, as long as they cite sources. I think issues of possible undue weight are best addressed by keeping this as one article instead of two. Friday (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as per FT. When is JFAS going to lay off her'his vendetta against all things African? Guettarda 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This vote violates WP:POINT and WP:AGF.--Urthogie 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please refrain from personal attacks and incivility. Invalid reason to keep. Justforasecond 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I think the issue of whether this is a POV fork is an important one, so I suggest letting the Afd run its course despite suspicions about motivation. Friday (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Cool (aesthetic), and make it a sub-topic. If this article is kept really needs to have more proper sourcing.--Tollwutig 19:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a single source for this. Justforasecond 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Any cited content that is relevant to "Cool" should be merged into that article. Justforasecond 16:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable, nonsourced nonsense. And caution Guettarda about personal attacks. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for sure, and consider a merge into cool (aesthetic) or delete. The article itself just exists to put forward the opinion of a couple professors(namely thompson) who hold some views on cool in african culture.--Urthogie 00:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into cool (aesthetic), per Urthogie. Haikupoet 03:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Zoe. Joe 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork & original research CoYep 06:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. — Apr. 12, '06 [07:00] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Merge into cool (aesthetic) -- GWO
  • delete, or improve+merge. Most of the article, as I can see it, is actually about African-American culture, not about African philosophy.--Aleph4 13:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: The creator of this page, Deeceevoice, has made clear that she supports a merge-- so I suggest that all votes based on supposed vendettas be ignored; vendetta or no vendetta, most people are voting the way the creator of this page originally wanted.--Urthogie 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Subsequently retracted to a strong keep. See my comments farther down the page and on the discussion page. Deeceevoice
  • I was about to put a pointer here to the same section of that talk page. The explanation of this article's creation given there makes it sound like a classic example of a POV fork. This issue isn't likely to be over just because someone closes the Afd as a delete or merge (assuming that's how it goes.) I hope a few of the editors watching here will stick around to help make sure things go peacefully with Cool (aesthetic) if there's going to be some merging. Friday (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on both articles for months and plan to continue on them.--Urthogie 14:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
(moved discussion from top) *Patently false. The charge is groundless and my comments have been taken completely out of context. The article is most definitely not a POV fork. See my comments farther down the page, as well as my comments on the discussion page, which include Google results. Deeceevoice 06:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The POV fork argument is incorrect. See my comments regarding the evolution of Cool and Cool (African philosophy) here [9] and here.[10] Urthogie claims he has been working on both articles for several months; however a quick review of the edit history will reveal that very little new, if anything at all, has been contributed to either article in that time. Edits to cool consist primarily of vandalism and subsequent reversions. Lacking sufficient time at present to devote to the article on Cool (African philosophy) and the constant attempts to obliterate it, it is likely best for now that the two pieces be combined. However, I am confident that, given sufficient development, the cool "philosophy" (per Thompson)/"aesthetic" (per other academics) in the African understanding, as I later discovered after doing some reading, is sufficiently complex to merit its own article. Deeceevoice 17:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Funny story online mentioning wikipedia a few paragraphs down -- [11] Justforasecond 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Not funny, a misrepresentation -- and utterly irrelevant to this matter. It speaks to your personal motives/vindictiveness in pursuing this matter ad nauseam. Shall I refer people to your conduct in the Dellums article? Deeceevoice 14:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Consensus seems to be delete "Cool (African philosophy)", and merge any valid content into "Cool". Any editor is welcome to edit "Cool" (as always). Justforasecond 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I refactored your comment a bit. Whoever closes the Afd (probably several days from now) can decide how to read consensus in this case. Formatted the way it was, your comment looked like it was telling people not to continue discussing this, which I don't think is desirable. Friday (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OK. no prob. I haven't done one of these before. Justforasecond 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP!!! See my comments on the discussion page, as well as the results of a proper Google search. I've reconsidered my position. I've tried to post this several times, but have been unable to do so. (Another instance of a collateral damage block; it happens to me constantly.) The two subjects are substantially different and both need space to be developed. Cool (aesthetic) should continue to deal with the pop culture manifestations of "cool" with a nod to its African/African-American roots. As I mentioned on the talk page of Cool: (African philosophy), there are all sorts of possibilities for further development of this that piece -- an examination of the evolution of "cool" and the anti-hero (the "bad nigger," Stagga Lee, Iceberg Slim, Clint Eastwood's nameless drifter, etc.). I suggest it be renamed "Cool (pop culture aesthetic)." I suggest the other article be renamed "Cool (African aesthetic)." In the readings I've done, primarily Thompson and the academicians who quote him refer to it as a "philosophy." All others seem to refer to the same (or very similar)concepts elucidated by Thompson as an "aesthetic," which, frankly, seems more appropriate. (I utilized Thompson's terminology in setting up the "philosophy" article as a means of differentiating it from cool in the pop culture context.) I reiterate that Wikipedia has far too few articles dealing with Africa and African culture. Cool in the African cultural context is sufficiently complex that it merits an article of its own. Google "African cool aesthetic" and see what you come up with. There's ample information on the subject in an African context and in the African diaspora to fill an article without mention of Fonzie and social stratification and many of the, IMO, rather shallow, pop-culture manifestations of the phenomenon. Deeceevoice 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • an examination of the evolution of "cool" and the anti-hero sounds like more original research, and in any case, can go into the "cool" article. we have yet to see a single source saying this is a an "african philosophy". Justforasecond 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, that is what I have just suggested above -- that pop culture references (including cool and the anti-hero) go into the "Cool (aesthetic)" article, renamed "Cool (pop culture aesthetic). Deeceevoice 06:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to make it clear, I strongly oppose merge, since there is no evidence that this is, indeed, an African philosophy other than one book. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
While Thompson's work (which actually includes several monographs) is the source of the term "philosophy" in connection w/cool, there is ample scholarship among academicians, anthropologists, art historians, etc., who write of an African cool "aesthetic." When I separated out the article from it pop culture stuff, I chose Thompson's terminology to diffrentiate the two, "aesthetic" from "philosophy." Further reading tells me the article is best titled "Cool (African aesthetic)," because "philosophy" has other connotations that see incongruous with the phenomenon and, indeed, somewhat antithetical to traditional African ways of being in/regarding the world. Whatever the article is called, there is a need to examine the phenomenon in its original and purest context, grounded in the cultural, existential, spiritual and moral framework that gave birth to it. And even if one completely disagrees that African cool and pop culture cool are even remotely connected at all, the subject still would merit an article -- because of cool's far-reaching influence in African the plastic and performance arts, interpersonal relationships, notions of propriety, comportment and spiritual centeredness. It is a cultural ethos at the heart of the indigenous African psyche/identity. It remains clearly in evidence today in the Motherland and, certainly in the Caribbean and the Americas. And there is scholarship supporting that fact. Deeceevoice 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment My agreement with Zoe supra extends to this point as well. Joe 03:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Whether we merge or not can be decided on the cool aesthetic page itself. I encourage you to participate.--Urthogie 11:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment That's not altogether correct. If this article is deleted, there is a presumption against its information's being added once more to the encyclopedia, inasmuch as the subject of the article has already been adjudged to be, for example, non-notable. Even as one may later decide to append some of the information in this article to the cool aesthetic page, a merge does not occur in the traditional sense. Joe 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not a straightforward case, but this does seem to be a minor neologism, and not to have much in the way of genuine philosophical background. It's certainly not related to African philosophy; the term seems to be being extended to Black American popular culture (something that's also done in the literature sometimes, but even one of the main culprits, Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, doesn't have any mention of "cool" in his African Philosophy: An Anthology). --Mel Etitis (?e? ?t?t??) 21:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep are you kidding me? "This article needs sources" is not a valid reason for delete. It is a valid reason for a "this article needs sources" tag. Let me also remark to Justforasecond that I'm not sure where he got his claim for "consensus"... it seems clear to me that this is a developing conversation we're having here about this, and 22 hours is kind of quick when you have this many opposing opinions. In short, hold off on declaring consensus, at least just for a second. --Deville (Talk) 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue is that its unsourcable-- its an article about an opinion.--Urthogie 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
There are no sources listed because no sources exist. Justforasecond 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I'm not understanding this. As I read your earlier comments, I didn't see any assertions that the article is WP:OR or unWP:V; as far as I can tell, you were saying that it was unsourced. Are you asserting that it is, say, OR? If so, fine, it may very well be, but this is a different issue, no? --Deville (Talk) 03:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of verifiability - most of this seems to be original research. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Verifiability issues. The JPS 17:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The argument that we need to keep this because African-related topics are underrepresented worries me. That's is a great reason to improve our coverage, but it's a bad reason to invent new topics. I still say this is a textbook POV fork, and it's also explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas: A new article to supplement an already existing one which you think is not putting your point across forcefully enough. This is precisely what happened here, and it's exactly the sort of thing NPOV does not allow. Friday (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Verifiability problems and original research are inherent to the idea of this article in my opinion. Ehheh 18:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously original research. Skinmeister 21:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Cool (aesthetic). They're both pretty short articles, and the distinction is pretty vague. This article seems to only exist because one editor is steamed that there's a white character (Fonzie) as one illustration of what she thinks should be an all-African concept; it's a classic POV fork. Any properly-referenced facts here should be kept in the combined article. *Dan T.* 10:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment:
Sorry, but that's about the most absurd comment yet. I have no objection whatsoever to the Fonz being on the page. The character is a perfect example of pop-culture cool. After all, it'd be pretty silly to contend that "cool" has been assimilated into mainstream American culture and then object to images that support that fact. My point -- again -- is that, with this vote, many are, in effect, saying that an article on cool as a legitimate, indigenous cultural ethos that is an underlying value in African society with regard to personal comportment, interpersonal relations, functional art, music, dance, etc., has no inherent value. And that most certainly is not the case. Cool in the African context would merit an article had there been no trans-Atlantic slave trade and no consequent infusion into American popular culture. It is complex, with pervasive implications in virtually all forms of indigenous African cultural expression. There is ample information about cool in African culture that is clearly not POV; it is the result of scholarly inquiry and rigorous research. Some of those sources have been provided on the talk page. The contentious subject is, in fact, pop-culture cool -- which, does not render an examination of cool in traditional African societies or in the African diaspora POV or superfluous. Quite the contrary. Further, an examination of pop-culture cool in its various permutations and disparate meanings is not critical to an examination of African cool. Far from it. If anything, the parent article to one on pop-culture cool should be one treating the African cool aesthetic. Deeceevoice 13:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Whether the subject has value or not is a subjective question(personally, I would say that African cool was indeed at the origins of the American cool...but of course thats my POV), which can be addressed from all angles on Cool (aesthetic).--Urthogie 13:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
But who are you? The point is no one should care what you think when it comes to this matter -- I know I certainly don't -- because you have no expert opinion, no credentials and, as far as I know, no objective basis upon which to make that claim. If you said you didn't believe African cool was the source of pop-culture cool, my response would be the name. Who cares? The point is there is ample, sourced, credentialed, and widely respected/accepted expert opinion and research which does examine cool in the African context, and that is the subject the candidate article for deletion seeks to address. Deeceevoice 07:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Even though there's disagreement over whether it should be merged or deleted, please note this: Both involve a deletion. We can easily allow for both by simply creating a subpage with the current content, for possible use later, and deleting the article.--Urthogie 10:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Creating a subpage -- and place it where? And who will find it? IMO, that's a silly approach. Either there is value there (as in any article) or there isn't. Keep the article where people can find it, keep the applicable tags and solicit people truly interested in the subject matter to contribute to improve the piece -- not just hack it up or obliterate it. Deeceevoice 15:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Look at the community consensus thus far. Is it very likely that it won't be merged or deleted? No. So that's why I'm suggesting you take a precaution.--Urthogie 15:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm. This article needs some work on it. As a newcomer it is very difficult to understand exactly what is meant, and it seems to treat the whole myriad of different African cultures as if they were one. For now, I think it should be a keep pending an eventual merge with Cool (aesthetic) once sources are found to show how the first inspired and led into the second. David | Talk 15:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't. But there does seem to be a degree of continuity across certain indigenous/traditional African cultures. The elements addressed in the aesthetic are observed and recorded internationally, and among various peoples. Apparently, the phenomenon isn't even limited to strictly what is thought of generally as West Africa -- something that surprised me when I first encountered the information -- from various sources. Deeceevoice 15:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Close as no consensus. At first glance seems interesting, quite clearly not speediable. Emotions in the discussion above are clearly running to high to reach consensus in short order, so keep by default. Martinp 16:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You really think so? Of people participating in the discussion, I count 2 3 who want to keep it, including the author. The two speedy keeps appear to be an objection to the nominator, so I wouldn't personally count them if it was me trying to close this Afd. Consensus seems to be forming already. Maybe a few days time will make it more clear. Friday (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm counting at least thirteen deletes, the three strong keeps could be counted (though one supported merge initially). Most of the merges and deleters seem to say the same thing -- the article should no longer exist. Justforasecond 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. While the article needs work, there is nothing here that qualifies for deletion. I also object to any attempt to "discount" the two speedy keeps because their objections are to the reasons this article was brought up for deletion. That is a valid reason for objecting. In addition, the rules state "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action."[12] While votes may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin, to do so in a case like this where there is no clear consensus strikes me as bad faith. If I was the closing admin, I would not discount their votes.--Alabamaboy 16:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    BTW, including my own vote there are three strong keeps, two speedy keeps, then the rest of the votes are split between delete and merge. Sounds like no consensus to me.--Alabamaboy 16:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    Well, from the discussion, the mergers and deleters are saying many of the same things: As an insufficiently verifiable, POV fork article, it should not exist on it's own. But, sure, this isn't easy. I hope the discussion runs long enough for a rough consensus to form and whoever closes this actually reads it rather than looking at the long discussion and slapping a "no consensus" on it. Friday (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    Merging and deleting should mean the same thing to a beauracrat-- deleting. A beauracrat wouldn't be involved in the merging part. If we want to merge the text we could just copy the content over to a subpage.--Urthogie 18:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and barring that Merge. The article certainly needs work and better citations, but it should not be deleted. Its topic is definitely worthy of an encyclopedia article. Yom 16:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • An article on the book would be acceptable, but an article on a philosophy which may or may not exist and its existence is solely based on that one book, is not verifiable and therefore fails the polciy at WP:V. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Basically, the consensus is that its a POV fork that doesn't deserve its own article. Therefore I think it would be irresponsible of any admin to keep it.--Urthogie 18:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus is not that its a POV fork and I find your comment that it is "irresponsible of any admin to keep it," made after asking me to reconsider my vote, insulting. The article needs a lot of work but it is a valid article. In addition, Robert F. Thompson's article is extremely well known and has been reprinted in a number of places (for example, here [13] and here [14]). The problem with this article is that instead of actually seeking consensus a small number of editors ON ALL SIDES OF THE ISSUE continually attack each other's assertions. As for more references to prove the validity of this subject, try these:

  • Healing Wisdom of Africa by Malidoma Patrice Some, Tarcher, 1999, pages 191-92, where it says, "...people show admirable dexterity in appearing cool." The text refers to the African cultural concept of appearing perfectly in control even when adrift in confusion.
  • Cool Pose : The Dilemmas of Black Manhood in America by Richard Majors, Janet Mancini Billson, Touchstone; 1993, page 57, where it states, "John Janzen dates the phenomenon of cool in Africa back to at least 2000-3000 B.c." The book also has a section on the "The Roots of Cool in African Culture," which can be read online at [15] (log-in to Amazon.com required).

Do I need to go on? This is a subject that is in the academic literature. Based on just a few minutes research I pulled up these two additional references and there are more out there. I suggest we work together to improve this article and move past personal disagreements among the different editors here.--Alabamaboy 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Alabamaboy: We know that its an existant theory. However, the page isn't called Cool (theory of African origin).--Urthogie 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
That's just ridiculous. The article is about the cool aesthetic in the African context -- as is made clear by the article's title. There is no doubt that cool in the African context is a cultural ethos indigenous to Africa. You're making an argument that is clearly inappropriate to this article; it belongs in Cool (aesthetic). Deeceevoice 21:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Then rename the article Cool (African aesthetic) since it sounds like the word philosophy is what everyone is hung up on. If, as Urthogie admits, this is a recognized "existant theory" then there is no reason to delete the article. Instead, rename it. That seems like a good way to achieve consensus. I also repeat my statement that EVERYONE who has been arguing about this article for the last few months seems to be way too caught up in it. Perhaps arbitration is needed. --Alabamaboy 21:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's what I've suggesting from virtually the very beginning. Read my comments here and on the discussion page (in bold)! And "African (aesthetic theory)"? (below) -- forget it! Deeceevoice 23:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Even should there be something justicable here, this matter would, I think, be seen by the ArbComm as altogether inappropriate for arbitration; surely mediation or RfC apropos of the preferred title would, should the article be kept, be better. Joe 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Alabamaboy, the appropriate title would be Cool (African aesthetic theory). The title Cool (African aesthetic) implies that those scholars are correct; when, of course, noone can be verifiably correct about a subjective aesthetic.--Urthogie 22:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool (African aesthetic theory) would be fine with me. And yes, mediation would probably be better than arbitration (I should have said that to start with). What amazes me, though, are the endless round and round arguments so many people have been having about the minutia of this article, both on this discussion and the article's talk page. Almost reminds me of items on the list of lamest edit wars ever. Notice I said almost. But if consensus isn't reached soon here, I could see all of this eventually making it onto the list. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not! Cool is not a "theory"; it is a clearly identifiable aesthetic in African societies/cultures. How and why is such a subject in an African context somehow not as real, not as substantial as similar phenomena in a European/neo-European (white) context? This is clearly an intolerable, utterly nonsensical double standard that will not be tolerated. Unless and until all articles treating aesthetic relativism and similar subjects have "theory" tacked onto them (e.g., "Aesthetic relativism (theory)," even articles treating other non-concrete matters such as "Physics (theory)," "Psychology (theory)," "Prayer (theory)," "Religion (theory)"), then Cool (African aesthetic) is perfectly and imminently appropriate/valid. Deeceevoice 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
This is faulty logic. Athiests know prayer exists; they know religion exists. Anti-psychologists recognize the existence of psychology. But many people don't recognize the african aesthetic as existing. The people from that college put it perfectly: "seminal ideas have to start somewhere." Guess what, that place isn't here: It's called original research.--Urthogie 10:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
False. Cite one informed person who says there is no such African aesthetic. And "many"? Who are the "many"? I've provided a number of sources referring to a generalized African aesthetic that exists across nations, across tribal groupings. How 'bout you find half that number? In fact, what people on the face of the earth do not have an aesthetic sense/aesthetic standards? Are you telling me that African societies are somehow exempt from the rest of humanity in this regard? And on what basis are you -- or is anyone -- qualified to make that pronouncement/assumption? Abject ignorance? Possibly ethic bias/racism? Sorry. That doesn't count. Uninformed opinion and ignorant/racist bias carry absolutely no weight here, thank you very much. Deeceevoice 10:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
You can't verify that the aesthetic exists. You can only cite theory and opinion. When you present such theory and opinion as fact, its original research. If this article does stay, I'll make sure it no longer breaks that policy either.--Urthogie 10:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
You haven't responded to my challenge. "But many [emphasis added] people don't recognize the african aesthetic as existing." Find a knowledgeable, informed source who denies the existence of such an aesthetic -- and on what ground(s). And then find me half as many who take that ridiculous position as the number of sources who maintain that African peoples, like the rest of humanity are capable of, and, indeed, do, have aesthetic sensibilities, and that many elements are held in common among certain societies. (Good luck.) I'm really interested to know who would dare make such an assertion. I'm waiting.
And let me refer you to Japanese aesthetics. What? No insistence that there be a "theory" tacked on to that piece -- or that it be deleted?
Again, I'm waiting. Deeceevoice 10:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That article deals with explaining terms and influences. Nowhere does it make unverifiable and unfalsifiable claims. For example, its a fact that buddhism has certain tenets. It's a fact that Geido refers to the arts. All of them are verifiable facts, rather than original research. Your article here makes unverifiable claims such as "cool is feminine energy."--Urthogie 10:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Still Waiting (but not holding my breath). Deeceevoice
If "Cool (African philosophy)" doens't exist except on wikipedia, who would go through the trouble to write up a paper saying it doesn't exist? See the No true Scotsman fallacy and remain civil. Justforasecond 21:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Good Lord! I just read your earlier post in its entirety. Uh ... I suggest you look up the term "original research" in the Wikipedia context. :p Deeceevoice 10:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to verify my view-- I'm not the one with the unverified article.--Urthogie 10:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
You're amusing me now -- but not sufficiently. Still waitin'. What say I come back in, say, a day or two and see what mental cretin you've managed to come up with who says there is no African aesthetic? You say there're "many." Finding one or two -- even three or four, then -- should be no problem fuyyah. TTFN. :) Deeceevoice 10:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
No offense, but usually people start dissing a theory once its gained some degree of popularity. I don't think there's been much commentary on this original research yet.--Urthogie 10:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Question could someone please tell me what this article is talking about, or is supposed to talk about? It just seems to jump around randomly without ever making sense. Kotepho 23:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
My apologies to the extent to which my distracted, half-hearted (and, admittedly, half-a**ed) changes to the article earlier today may have contributed to your confusion. I realized I really had absolutely no time to devote to the article and had succeeded in not only making the article less coherent, but in screwing up the footnotes, as well. I've reverted the article back to an earlier version. Please see this page's discussion page for more information. Thanks for stopping by to inquire. You reminded me that I'd neglected to go back and do the revert this a.m. (I was interrupted by a series of phone calls and a courier at the door -- and it completely slipped my mind.) Deeceevoice 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This was posted by Deeceevoice at talk:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy)[16] Just received an e-mail from the professor cited above (the one doing research into cool in African American literature), Jacqueline Goldsby, Univ. of Chicago. Here is what she wrote, in part: I skimmed the debate at the Wikipedia website, following the link you provided. Since I'm just embarking on my own research into the concept, I can't offer the kind of definitive sourcing you need. The bottom line is, that neither Deeceevoice, nor Jacqueline Goldsby who is researching the concept, are able to offer any other sources than Thompson. This article was already renamed 4 times in an attempt to find a title that fits DCV'S original research. That's not how an encyclopedia works. I concur with Zoe: An article on Thompson's book would be acceptable, but this is a POV fork article on a philosophy which isn't verifiable. CoYep 13:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it exceedingly telling what CoYep doesn't report of my e-mail exchange with Professor Goldsby. She writes:

I'm struck that the contributors to the debate are so hostile toward Robert Farris Thompson's discussion of "coolness" in Flash of the Spirit. That book is recognized by scholars as *the* definitive treatment of African-derived art forms and practices across the diaspora. Thompson's credentials are impeccable, as is his scholarship. It's specious for your opponents to dismiss the idea of "cool"'s Africanist origins simply because only one (English-language) text addresses it. That's often the case in scholarship. After all, seminal ideas have to start somewhere.

And while Goldsby refers to "that book," Thompson has written several celebrated and acclaimed monographs addressing African aesthetics and the aesthetics of African cool on the African continent and in the African diaspora, as well.
CoYep's contention is absurd on its face. I've offered several such sources on the discussion page. Many of the sources which CoYepu attempted to debunk, discount or flat-out mischaracterize still stand, as any quick perusal of the discussion page readily will reveal. Further -- again -- Thompson's works on African art and African cultural aesthetics are seminal in the field, accepted and respected -- as they have been for more than 40 years. And the contention that the article is a "POV" fork is specious and an obvious red herring. Deeceevoice 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the woman doesn't understand Wikipedia's policy on "no original research". That is, we dont allow "seminal ideas" to "start" here. Lol.--Urthogie 14:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
No. It is apparently you who fail to grasp the scope and breadth of Thompson's scholarship. I don't know how many times one must state the facts. This man has had material on African art and African aesthetics and African cool in publication since (as near as I can figure) 1964 -- likely before you were born. I myself been acquaintaed with his work and reputation as a well-known authority in the field since 1974. Wikipedians seem to be just about the only people who claim to know anything about the subject who don't seem to know anything about the man. And the fact that this is the first you have heard of him and his important work does not render his voluminous work "original research" -- not by a long shot. Sorry, but the laugh's on you. Deeceevoice 15:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
but the laugh's on *you*. Remain civil deeceevoice. Justforasecond 21:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying his research sucks or anything like that. I'm just saying that you need to treat his opinions as subjective. You cant verify the truth of his research.--Urthogie 15:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

comment: Even a professional researcher know of only one book -- even then she doesn't call it a "philosophy" and there's a good likelihood it's a forgery or she was mislead (she hardly "skimmed" the discussion and she mentions the hostility towards thompson -- huh?). I can't believe DCV is making everyone jump through hoops on this. She described her motivations for creating the page -- it is a POV fork. She supported merge but when it looked like her POV might not get enough attention when merged back in she changed her tune to "strong keep". Websites outside of wikipedia have started to notice DCV's activities. [17] Just end this article. Justforasecond 15:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, JFAS for that thoroughly absurd and totally off-base assessment. I think it speaks for itself. (What? Mentioning the website and its misrepresentation of that particular matter once already wasn't enough for you? Why not just flat-out accuse me of fabricating the communication altogether? Here's a suggestion, JFAS: try debating the matter on its merits, rather than trying to fabricate scenarios of "forgery" and grandstanding. Just chill. Some might misinterpret the kind of nastiness others have become accustomed to from you as desperation. Deeceevoice 15:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Jusforasecond, we're well aware of your vendetta against Deeceevoice, give it a rest, would you? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you go back to k5, Tex. - FrancisTyers 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge the article into Cool (aesthetic) and delete the original. I'd also like to point out that a lot of the references to African 'philosophy' should really be to African-American culture. - Richardcavell 10:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Actually, IMO, no. The article addresses only the aspects of African-Amerian culture that are expressions of the African aesthetic of cool. There are other clear expressions of this aesthetic in the African diaspora, as well -- in Caribbean and Brazilian cultures, specifically, where the imprint of Africa remains more pronounced -- which the article has yet to treat. But there are, indeed, manifestations that have become part of the pop-culture cool aesthetic, such as male machismo (which, though grounded in African cool, is not part of it). It is a product of the African-American experience and a survival response to slavery, oppression, etc. These "mutated" or descendant forms of cool more properly belong in an article treating African-American culture -- or, to the extent to which such expressions have been assimilated across ethnicities into mainstream American/pop culture (in the case of cool machismo, in bad-boy/anti-hero personas and archetypes) even better, into an article on "Cool (pop-culture aesthetic)" -- the "Cool (aesthetic)" article renamed. Deeceevoice 12:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Acknowledged. I still don't think the article is distinctive enough from Cool (aesthetic) or other pop culture/African American articles. It's well written, though, and it's worth keeping the copytext. - Richardcavell 12:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That's actually because the text introducing/delineating the elements of African cool was deleted, along with subheads where the information had yet to be written. The basic framework of the article was gutted months ago. There isn't sufficient information remaining in the article to help people understand that point. But the sources I've provided above do allude to those elements -- if you're interested in checking them out. And much of it is really distinct from and more meaningful than the pop culture phenomena/expressions of cool. A merge of the two articles is basically saying the underlying cultural aesthetics of much of black Africa do not merit a separate article -- when that certainly is not the case. The concepts and values involved and their myriad forms of expression throughout portions of Africa and the African diaspora are certainly complex enough to need that kind of space and separation to be detailed and explained.Deeceevoice 12:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep the introduction

  • Such a delightful example of very impressive and quite meaningless gobbledegook should not be lost to mankind 82.38.97.206 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)mikeL


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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Cool_%28African_philosophy%29_4a47.html"