Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (aesthetic)

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 KEEP. Postdlf 05:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cool (aesthetic)

While an article on the history, sociology, and aesthetic of "cool" would be interesting, this article appears to mostly be composed of unsubstantiated assertions and artful original research. I suggest moving the substantiated elements into Cool (currently a disambig). Nectarflowed ^T 22:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that, contrary to the article's argument, the word has been in use as "calmly audacious" since 1825, and has been applied since 1728 to "large sums of money to give emphasis to amount."[1]--Nectarflowed ^T 22:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete while the word may be old this article is original research. JamesBurns 09:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP This article is not original research and is under major construction/reconstruction (as are many articles on the web site) to broaden its focus (as it has been for the last two or three days), and there has been no discussion whatsoever of a VfD in the article discussion. The VfD has been initiated by someone clearly without a knowledge of the subject matter under discussion. (The rationale of usage provided above is utterly shallow and meaningless and has no bearing whatsoever on the cool aesthetic.) Presently, I seem to be the only individual contributing in any substantive manner to this piece, but knowledgeable contributions are more than welcome. IMO, this VfD is premature and ill-considered. Wikipedia has a distinct lack of articles treating black/African cultures -- and a distinct lack of expertise in this regard, as its membership appears to be comprised largely of white males. And while I claim no special (or innate) expertise in this subject based on formal education, ethnicity, or gender, I do at least have some exposure to the essential philosophical underpinnings of "cool" and am familiar with the concept in the African American and pop culture contexts. The stubborn ignorance (no pejorative intended; just naming it for what it is) and obstinacy demonstrated over time by some editors in the development of this piece -- very likely the result of the phenomenon of cultural appropriation and assimilation -- is all the more reason it should be given a chance to develop into a quality piece -- particularly given the importance of 'cool' in African societies and its impact on Western and world popular culture via the African American experience. Okay. I've spent far too much time responding to this **@#$%& VfD (time that could have been spent improving the article), and now must attend to some deadlines of my own. deeceevoice 11:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• VfDs serve an important role of community feedback in the organization of Wikipedia. Re: "The rationale of usage provided above is utterly shallow and meaningless and has no bearing whatsoever on the cool aesthetic." As a matter of the article's general methodology, it's unscientific (much of this article is probably in the field sociology) to disqualify the seemingly related meaning "Calmly audacious" from being an ancestor to the modern cultural concept of coolness. Best, Nectarflowed ^T 10:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: The article covers a real and notable topic, and a great deal of work has already gone into it. I agree that more citations, clarification and references to source material are needed, but that's only reason to improve the article, not delete it. Babajobu 12:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or rewrite. (is this still in voting?) Lack of african/-american articles does not mean you can add an african/-american slant to everything. You can not explain this with racism--I am not racist in any way. What's happening here is that you're being a Black Panther of wikipedia. You see the problem, then you go to an extreme and become just as skewed as the people you're campaigning against. You have destroyed the "cool" article. You will not allow any work on it that is not approved by you. You have lost all sense of what wikipedia is. This needs a rewrite. Fast.Lockeownzj00 17:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, Lockeownz, but your comments are pure nonsense. deeceevoice 23:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• thanks for defending your article like a rational human being :D Lockeownzj00 01:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have defended it as a "rational human being." I wish I could say the same for your objections. I won't get into a back and forth with you on this. You seem inordinately concerned with making ridiculous comments ("a Black Panther of wikipedia" and allusions to "racism" -- which are comically off-the-mark. Your objections have been registered -- as has my defense. As far as any exchange between you and me is concerned, I'm perfectly content to leave it at that. Substantive comments or questions from others on the VfD, however, are welcome. deeceevoice 02:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Lockeownzj, this VfD is about a particular article, and is not a referendum on Deeceevoice's personality. Your entire explanation for your "delete" vote was devoted to bitching about Deeceevoice. Even if everything you said were true, it's irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, that's a bad faith vote and should be disregarded. Babajobu 08:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Lockeownzj00's given reason for his vote was that he deems there to be an African American slant to the article.--Nectarflowed ^T 10:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The article, as written, covers a specifically African and/or African-American topic. If other "cool aesthetics" exist, (perhaps influenced by the African version, but distinct) and warrant articles of their own, then create a disambiguation page and write those articles. But this article is only slanted in the sense, say, that the baseball article has an American slant, or the Ayyavazhi article has a Tamil slant. Babajobu 11:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether there's too much POV in this article is debatable, and users with different opinions are entitled to their vote. --Nectarflowed ^T 01:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - convincing argument is not made that this meets the criteria for deletion. VfD is not the place for content disputes, as this appears to be. This appears to be a bad faith VfD. Guettarda 12:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep- I agree with Guettarda, this does appear to be a bad faith Vfd, content disputes do not belong on Vfd. -JCarriker 19:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Guettarda and JCarriker, can you explain why this topic's arguments, such as (1) "Cool is feminine energy; it is stillness, calm and strength" and (2) "Traditional West African ontology does not devalue one fundamental aspect of existence in relation to another" don't need to be referenced or supported with evidence?

It hasn't been demonstrated that this topic has recognized existence in the scholarly literature. The statements not only need to be referenced (which they're not), they need to be representative of recognized scholarly opinion. If they're not, they need to be presented as popular or fringe theory, rather than as simple fact (as the article does now).

This topic (aesthetics of) presently meets the requirements for original research. Substantiated content in the article can be moved to cool.--Nectarflowed ^T 01:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have no intention of getting envloved in a content dispute, this is a Vfd over an entire article, not one version of it, or a referendum on its NPOV or accuracy. Vfding this article was improper, so I opposed its deletion. If you wanted a referendum on its NPOV or accuracy you should have filed an RFC, not jumped to this extreme measure. -JCarriker 03:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• The proposition here is to delete this article, based on the supported argument that it is unreferenced original research. The sections of the article that are substantiated can be included at cool, but don't warrant an entire article devoted to this subtopic of cool (the aesthetic of).--Nectarflowed ^T 01:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• I have stated my assesment of the situation, it will not change. -JCarriker 04:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

To interject here, thus far, there have been claims of "original research," that there is no evidence of this subject matter in scholarly research, blah, blah, blah -- when the article cites and quotes published sources. In fact, Thompson is, perhaps, the foremost modern (Western) authority on African Art and culture alive today, and has been for more than three decades. And he's white. But because he writes of African and African American cool, he's somehow an "Afrocentrist." No, this is not a referendum on me, my "Afrocentrist" perspectives (which -- news flash -- are not rendered invalid, ipso facto, incidently, by someone merely assigning that presumptively -- in their eyes, at least -- dismissive label to them), or even, really, the content of this article. This is about a bad-faith move to delete an article -- with, again, absolutely no prior mention of such intent in the article discussion page -- because it treats another black subject which some benighted "contributors" assume, in their ignorance, to have other origins. And not only do they assume such, they aggressively have asserted their ignorance as fact -- in the face of clearly articulated information to the contrary, and with the article still under major construction/expansion.

IMO, this is a common form of arrogance and pettiness on this website and an attempt at censorship -- and, IMO, a perfect example of the kind of hostility to new information (particularly as it relates to black people and black culture) that challenges fallacious and often inherently racist majority assumptions of the way things are. It is also an example of the ignorance of (relative) youth. Few who lived through or are knowledgeable of the jazz scene from the time it caught fire in the 1920s, with its deep affinity with African culture and sensibilities and the pervasive influence it has had on American popular culture; or few who have lived through the times of the bohemian/beatnik set and its groupie-mentality fascination with African American slang, soul, style and music, would bat an eyelash at the statement that cool is a fundamentally black phenomenon (though they likely would say "African American," rather than "African," because that is the context in which they are familiar with it). But this ignorance (understandable), antagonistic intellectual arrogance (inexcusable) and inherent ethnic bias (pervasive) which is so much a part of Wikipedia is also precisely why I intend to go forward with the article, and with other submissions focusing on black-related topics on this venue. And, no. I'm not charging the people here with racism in its common sense, per se -- though I wouldn't necessarily rule it out across the board. The bias I write of herein relates specifically to a skewed notion of a world where the depth of black culture and history is little known, little understood by the masses -- but also heavily distored/appropriated. So, if people get so exercised/hostile over a little article on the cool aesthetic, gee, just think what'll happen later on down the line. I'm certain we'll find out -- 'cuz I ain't goin' nowhere. The article under discussion here will be a good one if people stop bickering and start doing their research (as I am) and contribute. That is, after all, the Wiki way. Of course, I understand perfectly if the topic is not of sufficient interest to everyone here to do so. My interests are not likely theirs. But if the whiners and grumblers don't do the research, if they admittedly don't know anything about a subject, then, respectfully, they should just shut the hell up, move on and go contribute constructively elsewhere. Now, I've got some real work to do; I've got bills to pay. I'm probably done with this page for a while, but will check back from time to time. Peace. deeceevoice 10:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Since we've had miscommunications in the past, Deeceevoice, I want to make my position clear that I support your position. Especially since this vote seems to have been more about you personally, than the actual article in the VFD subpage title— which is completely inapproriate. I would do research on the topic and contribute but I'm currently bogged down in fighting illiteracy and virulent POV pushers in U.S. Geography topics. Good luck. Peace. -JCarriker 19:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Deeceevoice, slapping book titles at the end of an article comprised of unsupported assertions doesn't make the article adequately referenced, and everyone will agree on that point. Every controversial assertion needs to be attributed to established scholarly work. Wikipedia is reactive, not proactive to revolutions.--Nectarflowed ^T 01:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• JCarriker, in what way is this VfD personally about Deeceevoice if the initiator hasn't stated anything regarding him? Are you referring to Lockeownzj00 and Pharlap claiming this article is representative of POV-pushing on the part of Deeceevoice? That's not personal, and both their votes give valid reasons. --Nectarflowed ^T 01:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • First off, regarding her, Deeceevoice is a woman. Second, I'll say it once more: content disputes do not belong on vfd, period. There is clearly a content dispute going on here. I appreciate your persistance, but unless you have some starteling new evidence, my postion is not going to change. Thanks. -JCarriker 04:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Being bi-racial myself (african-american father), and therefore classified as "black" by racialist societies and racist individuals, I feel embarrassed how well-meaning people are so easily played by somebody who shares the color of my shell. Bad faith isn't a one way street. And equality starts with an EQUAL treatment. It doesn't help us in our fight for equality to yell "racism" everytime we face constructive criticism. (and Deceevoice has a long history of doing that, see my diffs concerning the wareware case) It doesn't help us to make up "racist" stories either, as it happened just the other day, when deeceecvoice faced critics for her Blackface article, which is a featured article candidate (how could that happen since Wikipedia is allegedly such a racist net-society?) Facing criticism because of the inclusion of the terms "darky" in a section header and "nigger" in the related topics section, she made up a story about a mysterious racist editor, editing the page while she was allegedly blocked from editing [2]. Yet the edit history proves that the "nigger" link was added 2 years before she joined Wikipedia (14:30, 10 December 2002 by Ortolan88 [3]) and that she even "alpha ordered" the links (including the "nigger" link) [4] (scroll down) when she "rewrote" the article and that she inserted the "darky" and "coon" terms herself [5] [6] [7] Seriously. if you really want to help us, treat us like anybody else, and exercise "good faith" for anybody, no matter what color they are. And please double check before you accuse your fellow wikipedians of "bad faith", no matter if they are considered to be black or white. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. Pharlap 19:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• If you knew anything about my work at wikipedia, you'd know I have a history of defending minority viewpoints, such as those held by Walabio on circumcision, that I don't neccesarrily agree with. I am very aware of the diversity of Africa, which is why I'm a critic of Kwanzaa and Afrocentrism (I don't care much for Eurocentrism or any other centrism for that matter). I know every country in Africa and its capital, do you Pharlap? However, you don't know anything about me, so don't assume I'm cutting Deeceevoice slack because she's Black, it is an insult to her and myself. I live in an integrated neighborhood in the South, I have far to many Black friends, associates, and enemies to think one person is qualified to speak for all black people; not her and not you. Do not presume to stereotype me again. -JCarriker 21:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Do what you think you have to do, but maybe one day, one minute, you take the time to think about my words, I pray, I hope, .... Pharlap 21:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

:(Skimming again...) No, I don't know anything about you. I don't follow your edits. But, yeah, I can really see how prayerful and kind and hopeful you are. (crackin' up) Come down off the cross. It really doesn't suit. deeceevoice 21:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

My bad, JCarriker. The tight format of this piece had me mistaking your comments for those of Pharlap. I should have known he never would have stepped back and said something so magnanimous (hence my response). It's simply not in him. I very much appreciate your reasoned support in this matter. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 22:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Oh, Pharlap, you're embarrassing yourself. First, I was never "under attack" for Blackface. It's a quality article which stands on its own. When I became aware of the FAC request for the article, I saw that one person had expressed mild reservations about the use of the words "darky" and "coon" in the article, and I simply explained their usage. I had already deleted the link to Nigger. The business about Zwarte Piet was resolved amicably, I thought. I even sent User:Andries a note suggesting how he could improve his rather cryptic add-on by asking a few questions for him to address. I subsequently cleaned it up just a bit, and the resultant language is now part of the article. I did not see the related exchange on the talk page until after the fact, at which time I simply lost my patience with the silliness of it all. Now, with regard to "nigger": Simply because I alpha ordered a list some time ago where the word was included means nothing. I often peruse articles by section -- sometimes editing for content, but often first skimming, looking at an article as simply a copy editor, paying very little attention to content and context. A case in point is the controversy over the inclusion of a racist image in an article on Watermelon. I first saw no problem with the image because when I first took a look at the article, I was looking at it the image as merely an object, a photo, within a piece. I have a rather large collection of such images, so I don't find them shocking in the least; I'm accustomed to seeing them. My first reaction was that the photo needed to be upsized in relation to the rest of the images on the page -- simply in terms of visual space -- and that it should be staggered. With a background in all aspects of journalism, including page layout, it wasn't good to have a series of photos lined up on a single side of the page. I upsized the photo and staggered it. That was done when I saw the page as a copy editor. I went back later and looked at the page as an editor, and the thing that struck me immediately was that the image was wholly inappropriate in that context. I removed it, stating why -- and have weighed in, in the straw poll conducted on that issue to that effect. After doing that, I also went to Blacks and removed a table I'd seen at least a handful of times (and even copyedited minimally on a few occasions -- again taking a superficial approach) and which I'd been annoyed by to varying degrees over time. It consisted of largely pejorative terms for black people by country. The "watermelon" image and the issue it represented caused me to make the connection that I needed to finally act on that matter, as well. I deleted the table on the same grounds and placed a notice on the discussion page about why and opened the matter up for discussion -- and mentioned it in Talk: watermelon because, to my way of thinking, it is much the same issue, simply in a different article. So, Pharlap, your baseless insinuations in that regard are just that -- baseless. Next, with regard to my being blocked from editing "Blackface" -- unless you have some proof that it did not occur, then I suggest you button it. I was, indeed, blocked from editing the article by another editor because of an "impersonator." I was able to edit everything else, it seems, but not that piece. As a matter of fact, I've been blocked on two or three separate occasions in the last three days, with the block notification listing each time a different IP address. My mention of this situation was, I suppose, a complaint -- but also a kind of defense for my not having responded to the new edits sooner with the article under FAC consideration. And, while I admit I do find the situation at least a little curious, I in no way charged and certainly did not intend to insinuate nefarious goings on -- and certainly not on the part of any specific individual(s). Finally, did I charge any of the people commenting here in favor of this ridiculous VfD with garden-variety racism? Nope. (Did I already I know you're a half-white when I wrote my response? Yep. So, why would I do that? The very idea is absurd!) I no more called the white complainants in this process (or you) garden-variety racists than I insinuated any possible identity issues or self-loathing on your part. Nor will I do so. What I have stressed, however, is what I perceive as a stubborn, ill-informed adherence to preconceived notions about subject matter based on a knowledge base that is itself tainted by ignorant (again, no critical value attached to the word -- just stating it for what it is) presumptions and cultural appropriation/assimilation, and the aggressive, bad-faith action of this VfD. I suggest you, as we say, check your b*tch at the door, because your personal motivations are showing; you're still grinding that axe. Let it go, bwoi. Let it go. :p. My apologies to others for this lengthy diversion from the matter at hand, but, as in the Wareware RfC and related matters, dragging in unrelated "issues" and making wild accudations/insinuations is Pharlap's modus operandi. I've merely responded. The VfD is still groundless. deeceevoice 20:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

First, I'm NOT your "BWOI", chill with your insults. Second, I provided the diffs, so you can stop lying and you can stop making up stories. The water melon case is a totally different issue, and after your edit war about the inclusion of white apartheid system into the melanin article just as ridiculous. And we don't want to discuss your assertion that africans, sold for slavery, chained naked in the bottom of slave trading ships, took suitcases full of water melons along with them. You play a good game. It's time to stop, your ignorance and racism is embarrassing. If somebody wants to see an example of your creative POV editing, one just has to check the recent changes at afrocentrism. Almost all your POV edits are faulty and unverifiable. Maybe you should consider writing novels, science fictions or something ... Pharlap 21:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. Pharlap, baby, you get more and more shrill with each post. Now, I'm "lying"? (chuckling) You rattlin' the crystal up in here, bwoi. Chill. Take a deep breath and go to your happy place. But how kind of you to express an interest in my career path. Thank you. Wun mo' 'gin: peace 2 u. :D deeceevoice 21:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete original research - neither factual nor verifiable or encyclopedic. Unfortunatly, editor's past attempts to correct the distorted facts and to turn this piece into a verifiable article have failed because of one editor's profound sense of ownership. That's why I think it's a good suggestion to move the few substantiated elements back to the original cool (which was destroyed in an arbitrary act of deletion) and expand it from there. Pharlap 08:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It would be a shame to delete this, as a lot of work has gone into it, and it's interesting to read. I don't see it as original research because there are references, though I'd like to see more inline attribution. For example, where it describes West African ontology: "Apparent opposites, or countervailing constructs, not only meet — as with the Kalunga line, a sacred, underwater line of demarcation where the worlds of the living and of those passed on reconnect and interact — but can and often do inhabit the same space, conceptually or literally," it would be good to see "according to X," and an explanation, with a source, of where the idea of the Kalunga line comes from. But these are points that can be cleared up as the article's being worked on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: One just need to take a few minutes to research some of the articles statements to see that Nectarflowed rightfully labled it artful original research. Let's put aside the fact that there isn't ONE african culture, and that there isn't even ONE West African culture, and let's start with the entry, the assertion that

:"Robert Farris Thompson divides the cool aesthetic into five distinct elements: visibility, luminosity (of motion), smoothness, composure of the face (the "mask of the cool"), and rebirth and reincarnation." One would expect, that, if that is really a common assertion in scholarly literature, one would find at least a hint of that theory somewhere on the net. That isn't the case, What you find are "Elements of the African Aesthetic" [8]. with (cool) self-composure being ONE of the 5 elements, and not to other way around. What you also find is that "Robert Farris Thompson writes in his 1983 book Flash Of The Spirit that cool originated in Nigeria in the first half of the 15th century. Ewure was the name given to a ruler crowned king of the Nigerian Empire of Benin. At the time, the word literally meant, "it is cool". [9]

Lets move to the statement that "Cool is feminine energy; it is stillness, calm and strength.... "Heat is masculine energy... " That isn't true either. It's exactly the other way around, which can be easily varified here: "The black male's cultural signature is his cool. It is sometimes the only source of pride, dignity, and worth in the absence of the outward status symbols of materialism and title that mark success in American culture. His status rides on his ability to communicate through human encounters, the most important information about himself: his coolness. Because it is so prized, preserving cool becomes an end in itself. (Majors & Billson)" [10] and here "The images here illustrate the masks of strength or the "cool pose" that Richard Majors and Janet Mancini Billson discuss in their landmark 1992 book of the same title. In Cool Pose, they bring the definition of cool up to date. The "cool pose", they write, "is a ritualised form of masculinity that entails behaviour, scripts, physical posturing, impression management, and carefully crafted performances that deliver a single critical message: pride, strength and control". They say that by acting calm, emotionless, fearless, aloof and tough, the African-American male shows both the dominant culture and the black male himself that he is strong and proud."[11] Cool Pose: The Dilemmas of Black Manhood in America [12]

And to merge informations about the unique mystical Yoruba concept of "itutu" [13] she's obviously hinting on, into an article addressing jazz culture and sunglasses in the 50's and black power activists wearing sunglasses in the 70s makes as much sense as to merge the christian concept of "hot" hell and heaven as a (comparatively cool) state of wellbeing with sunglasses as fashion accessories and "cool" machoist attitute in europe. And while we are talking about sunglasses: wearing sunglasses indoors has it's origins in China, and is not an invention of African Americans performing in jazz clubs: "The first reason why they darkened glasses was because of smoke tinting, which was held in China before 1430. It was so far back in time, that of coarse their glasses were not of any prescription, and they were not used to protect your eyes from the sun. Chinese judges had often worn sunglasses with quartz to hide the expression in their eyes while during a court case". [14] Maybe somebody wants to include that fact into the Cultural appropriation article, just in case you get the permission from the article owner.

This goes on and on, the whole article is a big mishmash of unsubstantiated assertions, distorted facts, ridiculous assumptions, and the tit bits of reliable informations are turned topsyturvy. In short: artful original research. Pharlap 17:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• More blah, blah from Pharlap -- which, as is my habit, I've only skimmed parts of it. (There are some things for which I simply have no patience.) And more snide comments, too. (I just saw the note about cultural appropriation. Perhaps Pharlap should quit while he still has a shred of dignity left. Oops! Too late. :p Excuse me, but the material's source is a book -- not the Internet. Further, I said cool was feminine -- not coolness as it is commonly perceived in the African American context. It is, in fact, neither masculine nor feminine in my culture; black women also possess and demonstrate cool. We always have. Finally, nowhere did I suggest that African Americans were the first to wear sunglasses. This has gotten downright silly. The VfD is still groundless/worthless. And I'm back to work. I'll return to Cool (aesthetic) later in the week when I have some time, and continue editing and improving the piece. Peace. Pharlap, I wish you peace, too. You seem to need it more than anyone here -- seriously. deeceevoice 20:38, 17 July 2005 (UT

Blahblah? well, I really didn't expect an intellectual, reasonable response from somebody who even thinks that the "swastikia" is BEAUTIFUL because it's black and NOT white. [15] Pharlap 22:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

If anyone doubts this, uh ... person's credibility, please feel free to click THIS link[16] (without the typo, which was corrected almost two hours before the above post) and an additional note, and see how his twisted mind and nefarious intent deliberately have mischaracterized my comments. (Just can't help yourself, huh, Pharlap? Keep it up. You're making yourself appear even more ridiculous. And even I didn't think that was possible.) 'Nuff said. ROTFLMAO. :p deeceevoice 01:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Please Keep; it's a real concept. Not only that, the article is well-written--indeed very well written--as well as sourced. Nice job, and peace to everybody. Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Close The article has changed its topic since nomination. As the nominator, I think this VfD should be closed now. Consensus is keep.--Nectarflowed ^T 20:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Actually, the topic remains pretty much the same -- but I agree. This VfD was groundless, to begin with -- and has failed. deeceevoice 20:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

1. As JCarriker noted above, it would be a mistake to equate a keep vote with an endorsement of the article's current state. You've changed some of the original research, such as what was the first paragraph of the article, but statements such as "Cool is feminine energy" are still unacceptably unreferenced until they have inline attribution, which was SlimVirgin's general recommendation, given above.
2. The topic and it's given definition, as you've noted on the talk page,[17] has changed from cool as an aesthetic, to the African aesthetic of cool, and you've expressed plans to rename the article accordingly. The new topic has greater license to make non-sequitor claims, such as defining cool as, among other things, "rebirth and reincarnation."--Nectarflowed ^T 23:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, the VfD was groundless. VfDs are not to be used to resolve content disputes. People voted -- and you lost. The scope of the article has been broadened, yes, but its treatment of the cool aesthetic as African in origin has not. Further, the language in the opening paragraph also appears later in the article, so you might want to think again about dropping this "bad-faith VfD" based on some misguided notion on your part that the fundamental assertions of the piece have, or will, change. As far as the article in its present state, you weren't too concerned about jumping to conclusions based on your ignorance of the subject matter and where the article stood a few days ago. As with any article on this web site, it is unfinished -- and was clearly still undergoing major development (and still is) when you initiated this process designed to push your particular point of view, rather than honor the Wiki process. "Non-sequitor claims"? Yeah. Tell it to Thompson. Again, your ignorance and obstinance are showing. *x* But, hey, if you want to just slink away based on the fact that the VfD has been voted down by more than two to one at this point, be my guest.deeceevoice 02:11, 23 July 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.