- Template:Rasta-stub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|SfD)
This was discussed months ago without resolution and then the deletion months later was slipped through with no discussion and only one pro-delete, and that personm knew their was oposition but decided not to let anyone know, just a back door deletion with no consensus, IMO. I had been expecting the fd for weeks after the discussion and then copncluded it wasnt goinmg to be deleted. it appears that knowing there was opposition to deleting this stub from 2 users that siomeone decided to wait tand thus disable the opposition in an improper way. I have no idea who the closing admin was, it was deleted at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion, SqueakBox 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment from SfD closer - I closed resolution on the 20th (diff). The standard wait time for closure is 7 days, which would have been on the 19th. There was plenty of time for people to voice their opinions in the discussion. There was only one vote: to delete, so that's what I did. From a closing perspective, I can only look at what's in the SFD discussion. I didn't see any indication that anyone wanted it kept, so I deleted it. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 22:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- More information about rasta-stub here. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. The stub type was a constant problem for stub sorting, due to its ambiguous naming, ill-defined scope, and paucity of use. Those articles which did use it were not best suited to using it - most of them had little to do with rastafarianism per se, but were, rather, reggae musicians (a reggae-stub is in the process of being created to replace this template on those articles, as it better suits their subject). The name of the template was also decidedly ambiguous, as "rasta" was intended to be an abbreviation for "Rastafarianism", whereas the term "A rasta" usually means a rastafarian - and as such, this was easily perceived as a variety of biography stub. What's more, stub catgeories are only created where there is a distinct need for them and a population of existing stubs that is sufficient to warrant a split of the stub ype from other stub types - as listed on WP:STUB and elsewhere, this is taken as being sixty existing stubs. The entirety of Cat:Rastafari only contains 53 articles, many of which are far beyond stub length. As such, there is no usrful purpose for this stub type at present. Once there are sixty stubs about the rastafarian movement (not about the related but different subject of reggae music), a proposal to re-create this stub type would be reasonable. But at present, even if correctly named and scoped it would be of little use to editors and actually creates more work both in terms of extra searching by editors and extra sorting by stub sorters. As for the accusation that it was somehow deliberately slipped through so that no-one would notice, only stubs which are clearly impractical or are problematic in other ways are taken quickly to SFD. It is standard practice for stubs listed on the Stub sorting project "discoveries" page to remain there for some time if it is unclear whether the discoveries will be useful or not. If, after some months, they are found to be of use, they are accepted and added to the canonical list of stub types. If they are found to be more trouble than use, they are then nominated for deletion. This is what happened in this case. As to "not letting anyone know", a deletion process notice was placed on the stub type when it was brought up at SFD - which again is standard practice. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Rasta used as an abbreviation of Rastafaraianism. What utter tripe? Such a statement merely proves your profound and complete ignorance of the subject of Rastafari, Grutness, but yes it should have been called a Rastafari movement stub and that would have been easily fixed. I dispute there is even one article where the stub was inappropriately used, it was not just used for reggae musicians and reggae is a far larger genre than Rastafari (the Rastafari-based musicinas being a sub-genre of reggae, often called roots reggae). The way you outline the porcess, Grutness, makes it extremel;y difficult for those outside the stub crew to be able to participate in these debates, and one has to wonder if that is deliberate, SqueakBox 17:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for you lovely comments, SqueakBox. I, at least, made an attempt to play the ball, not the man. To comment on your relevant points: 1) the stub type was used inapproriately on a majority of the articles - when first checking to see whether the stub type was worthwhile I went through quite a large number of them, and would say that close to 75% of the articles were not appropriate for a rasta-stub; 2) the process, as I outline it, is very straightforward - a stub type is proposed, and then debated. You don't need to be a member of the stub-sorting wikiproject to do either of those actions, and in fact a large proportion of those who propose and comment on stub types are not connected with the project. If a stub type is nominated for deletion, then anyone may comment on that nomination, in exactly the same way as anyone can at the other XfD processes. You chose to do neither, despite the fact that it was perfectly easy for you to do so. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- A quick glance at my contribs during the time I was sorting the rasta articles pulls up Judy Mowatt. There is
not one singlea vague mention of the Rastafari movement in the form of Haile Selassie, no Rastafari category, yet this diff shows that rasta-stub was placed on the article by SqueakBox. And I only got through 3 articles, out of the 58 or so I sorted. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- There may be an issue with the article then but there is no question she was a Rastafari, see here, SqueakBox 18:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- And actually even before I ref'd her as being a former Rastafari there was a piece in the article about the alleged death of Selassie I in Aug 75 so I strongly disagree with your judgement that the rasta stub was inappropriate in this or any other article I placed it in, SqueakBox 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Of course, once I point out an article that only vageuly mentions the Rastafari movement, then you edit the article to include more information... That's not really a good way to go about things. The point of stub types is to find 60 existing articles that would warrant the stub type. You shouldn't go around adjusting articles so that your stub type can stay. And like I said on your talk page, just because a person is a Rastafari doesn't mean that the article should use rasta-stub. We don't put {{Christianity-stub}} on every article about a person who might happen to be a Christan. Once you can identify 60 existing articles about the Rastafari movement itself, then a rasta-stub would be justified. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Well obviously I improve the article because I am able to and using this [process to improve articles has to be a fgood thing but my point is that this article actually specifrically discussed Rastafari in a better way that many others in the Rasta stub collection, and linked to Selassie I (Rasta God) so I stand by my judgement that you chose a bad example, and my additions (especially re her controversial claims re Bob Marley) would make it more appropriate right now and one of the most appropriate articles in which to have the Rasta stub. I have bookm,arked your statement anyway, if I can get 60 articles together that would justify the rasta-stub I'll use your statement to justify re-creating the stub (and I'll have a good look to see hopw the Christianity stub is used). For me stubs should be used in areas where the project has poor coverage (ie needs expanding) and I would certainly say that of our coverage of Rastafari generally, SqueakBox 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure. The "grounds for reversal" here seem to rely on a huge assumption of bad faith (which seems especially egregious in this instance, given that the nominator explicitly stated that she was expressing no "!vote" -- which suggests to me strongly that there's not much prospect of an exercise in !vote-stacking, unless it's of an especially subliminal or deletion-judo sort), and amount to an apparent sense of entitlement that all potential deletion-opposers would all be actively canvassed to participate in the SFD discussion. Something being tagged for 12 days is not "back door deletion", it's at the very least evidence that no one both noticed and cared for (at least) that long. On the substantiative merits of deletion, I'd tend to agree with Grutness. Alai 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure - The closer interpreted the discussion correctly. Five editors participated in the January 2007 discussion and two editors participated in the September 2007 SfD. The SfD was open for 7 1/2 days. I do not see any bad faith in the September 2007 SfD and the DRV nominator has not evidenced any. It might help to review Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -- Jreferee T/C 15:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
|
