Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy) (archive)

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 no consensus to delete. --Angr (tɔk) 17:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool (African philosophy)

Fails the Google test, goes under many things that Wikipedia is not and attempts at improvement have failed thanks to constant reverts. Urthogie 23:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like original research. Ashibaka tock 02:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

More than that, even the original research itself isn't encyclopedic. I've talked with the guy himself, hes an art interpreter, not a scientist.--Urthogie 02:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the article's talking about art and not physics, this actually strikes me as entirely appropriate. --Dvyost 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is not called Cool(African art). It's presented as philosophically true.--Urthogie 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete clearly origianl research. Gotta go.Gator (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete original research --Xyzzyplugh 14:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Real enough to those who believe in it. Fred Bauder 19:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Noone has ever contributed to it, except DCV, and she made it impossible to remove the POV from her works, thanks to reverting. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, so we shouldn't have an article that claims as true things that are unscientific.--Urthogie 01:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, this doesn't appear to be true. --Dvyost 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there have been failed attempts at objectivity in this article's history. Look at the talk pages for a chronicle of enraged wikipedians, each giving their stab at balancing the article throughout its history.--Urthogie 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for a while Until the deeceevoice RfAr is complete. -Justforasecond 20:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Gator. Stifle 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if this is not highly contested after DCV's arbitration --Urthogie 01:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, unverified and unverifiable.Humansdorpie 00:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Suggest that relevant information be moved to Cool (aesthetic) (I know that such a link currently leads to the article in discussion, however), which must cover the concept of "cool" both in African and non-African contexts. This present article, however, has no hope of becoming NPOV because it was created on the premise of a POV and attempts to prove or justify that POV. Yid613 00:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article needs work but it has a lot of solid info and references.--Alabamaboy 20:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand what the specific grounds for deletion are here (constant reverts are not one; that's a case for mediation). What sections of WP:NOT is this violating? How is this original research when it provides five references supporting its claims? It could use more thorough citation, and I'd be happy to see uncited parts go, but it's clear that we're talking about a concept that has some meaning to the art world--otherwise they wouldn't keep publishing articles on it. --Dvyost 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - nothing raised here seems to meet the criteria for deletion. Also, has the stink of a vendetta to me. Guettarda 21:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have never edited a page with DCV before this article, and please view the talk pages if you think I came in with a bad attitude. You'll see that I've tried to handle this with complete objectivity and respect.--Urthogie 21:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Only causes circuitous arguments and tiresome edit wars. Either delete or rewrite the article entirely using verifiable sources. --Modulatum

• Keep. I don't understand why an article that is as well-referenced as this one would be considered for deletion. If anything, I think the article should be expanded. I am a sociologist and have come across other articles on this and closely related subjects over the years. To delete an article like this one seems almost a racial act to me. Wikipedia needs more articles like this one on African art and culture, not fewer. There is also the possibility (from what I've gleaned elsewhere on this) that there are personal aspects to this VfD, based on an RfA. I don't know all the facts on this yet, but have it from a source I trust. Berenise 11:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't see the old version, the article is currently the result of my deleting the subjective content. I assure you this isnt a personal issue. This is the only article I've done with DCV. Also, if you look at the talk page, you can see in my first post that I clearly support the pages existence, and wanted it improved. It was only when I recognized that POV was the reason for the article's creation-- the essence of the content, that I put this on AfD. Also, if anyone else falsely thinks that this is a personal problem of mine, rather than the crappiness of the article, please understand that Wikipedia has a rule about primary sources. And this article doesn't follow it.--Urthogie 15:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Following comments were made in reference to Dvyost

Ok, ill answer this one by one:

• Constant reverts aren't the grounds, they are just what makes it worse.
• It violates the following sections of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
• To claim it has primary sources would be in complete contradiction with the words of Deeceevoice herself(who put all of the content up), who said the following in her attack on the established "eurocentric policy" of primary sources:

In subject matter such as this which treat third-world cultural/anthropological matters, primary ::sources often are not available. It is, in a way, saying no article treating San culture has ::credibility unless we can find an authoritative text written by a Bushman. Ridiculously eurocentric and absurd. [1]

• The problem isn't lack of sources, its lack of encyclopedic primary sources. All of her sources are art interpretations. People can come to many conclusions when viewing art. If she were to approach this objectively, she would say that so and so believes this, unfortunately, she had to take a leave from wikipedia before this could be forced into the ridiculous article.
• Coolness in african art has meaning, but the article has not a single encyclopedic paragraph. I defy you to find one paragraph written by her in this article which subscribes to wikipedia's guidelines.

--Urthogie 21:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused by your insistence on primary sources here, as WP:NOR seems to say that secondary sources are fine for constructing articles. What's even more confusing to me is your insistence on "scientific" or "empirical" evidence; how do you see this coming about in an article on aesthetics? Generally the precedent in art/aestethics articles seems to be to cite the relevant critics (or "interpreters," if you prefer); so far as "scientists" exist in the field, this is them. Anyway, I don't understand how summarizing scholarly secondary sources in this case is any different than what I've seen in dozens of history articles. It's certainly not required that we agree with this (I for one don't) but I don't see the harm in saying that "scholar X and scholar Y advocate a philosophy of Z". That's how Wikipedia articles are built, right? --Dvyost 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It is OK to base articles on secondary sources, but she presented the secondary source as a primary one. She actually said "Cool is feminine energy, cool is etc." You can't do that! Even if you do suggest a keep of this article can you please address the fact that that isn't allowed by wikipedia policy? Furthermore, before my mass deletion of the article's content, there weren't statements like "scholar X advocates this". heres an example of how she would say stuff before my edits:

Cool is feminine energy; it is stillness, calm and strength. Cool is composure, dignity in being and comportment and a practiced stoicism. It is a way of being, a way of walking in the world. Cool abides. Heat is masculine energy, strength and movement; it acts. Both elements assume co-equal values in African movement and dance, in African music and art. The cool aesthetic permeates traditional West African cultures and African-American culture, as well— in black artistic and musical expression, in the hitch in the "pimp" strut of urban, African American men; in African American dress and adornment, demeanor and speech.

Not only is that a misinterpretation of Thompson(I've exchanged emails about the article with the man himself), but even if it were a proper citing of his view, it would be presenting his interpretations as the gospel truth! It's a soapbox, no? (PS I want to thank you for maintaing objectivity in this discussion, and im honestly very thankful for your approach to this article. Much respect for that.)--Urthogie 15:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For those who think I have an anti-african bias

Go read the history section on the article rapping. Hip-hop (my favorite music), is linked to griots, which were essential to west african culture. If I had an anti-african bias that warped my objectivity, why would I bring it in to my favorite thing? Please stop the personal implications.--Urthogie 15:38, 5 January 2006 (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.