Talk:Cool (African aesthetic)

message: DCV, you might find the following helpful to adding to this content(I'd like to see it expand if/when its merged):
*Ubuntu (ideology) - Ubuntu is a sub-Saharan African ethic or ideology thats in many ways very similar to cool.
As a side note, the first essay I read(when I was much younger [meaning...11 or 12]) about Cool as an African-American invention: It's called Are Black People Cooler than White People.
It's written by Donnell Alexander, a black dude.  He puts forward the view(which seems to be shared by Fran Lebowitz) that cool stemmed out of slavery and oppression: "making a dollar out of 15 cents" and making the chitlins taste good even though they were nasty.  My question is, why doesn't your article address this?  It's all about nonlinearility and opposites existing in the same space and time-- but it doesn't address the view that cool is largely an African-American invention, and that it's about making something out of nothing.  If this way of looking at cool existed in this african philosophy/aesthetic, I'd think that'd be very beneficial to the content.--Urthogie 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ubuntu (ideology) is a nice article.  It looks like a real, verifiable, specific thing, which makes it very different from this article. I think it's easily possible to write about specific, named African ideologies without being full of original research, as that article proves.  One of the reservations I have about this article is 1) it seems to be lumping Africa together as one group, which is totally inappropriate, there are many cultures and languages there, and 2) it seems to be confusing African with African-American.  These are vastly different things.  I can't imagine how any competant scholar could make such obvious mistakes.  I'm not sure it's appropriate to try to lump ideas from different cultures together and slap a new label on them- it seems like original research. I'd much rather see individual, verifiable articles like Ubuntu than this mess here.  Friday (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  source and a question 

message: Alright, I see the Afd was closed as a no consensus, but to me it seems clear that there is consensus for this not being it's own article anymore.  Anyone have thoughts on merging?  I'd be inclined to just make this into a redirect and let people who want to merge do it whenever they want, but maybe other opinions would be helpful here.  Friday (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the redirect was reverted with a summary advising that it be discussed on the talk page.  Well, here's the talk page- I support the redirect, and apparently Zoe does too (since she did it).  Also, the vast majority of those who commented on the Afd (counting those who said delete or merge) want this to not be a stand-alone article anymore.  I'd say it's already been discussed, but the redirect was reverted.  So, what's left to decide?  Friday (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The AfD was closed no consensus. I moved the article as suggested. If you want the page to be merged, put up a merge template, actually no, I'll do that, and we can discuss it here. - FrancisTyers 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "no consensus" closure doesn't mean that no information can be gleaned from the discussion.  But, I guess I'll say it again: This article is a POV fork and needs to be merged back into Cool (aesthetic).  Or, having a proper article on the history and origins of cool would be just fine, but not an article that presupposes one and only one correct origin of cool.  If we're trying to properly source it instead, this is just foot-dragging.  The article has had months and months to be made into something other than a POV fork, and it hasn't happened.  I guess I'm not sure what's expected to come out of the discussion here that didn't already come out at Afd.  Most people think this is a POV fork.  Not having a seperate article for this particular idea of cool is the obvious solution, I think.  Friday (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: The final result of the AfD was a clear consensus for either merging or deleting, not keeping.  A keep of this article is not appropriate.  Since the delete did not carry, then the merge has to be carried out.  Please don't leave this article in place, as that was not the final result.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to concur with Zoe here.  The burden of proof is on those that want to do something other than redirecting.  Friday (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: An assertion that it's not appropriate and a dictionary definition are the best you can do to explain your reversion? Geez.  The opinion so far is definitely leaning toward this not being its own article.  Friday (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A prior Afd does not bind our hands on what to do with the article.  Especially when it's closed as just a "no consensus".  See prior talk page discussion.  Friday (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: Since Deeeceevoice and her coterie won't allow the redirect to remain, I have deleted the page.  If you put it back, I will redirect and protect.  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of that stuff was probably worth merging here.  This would be easier if it weren't deleted.  How about restoring, turning it into a redirect, and protecting it that way?  Then the history would be available.  Friday (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do that.  I could also just leave it unprotected to allow Deeceevoice to violate 3RR by reverting again.  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't think she'll revert -- she's busy with "deadlines".   Justforasecond 04:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Not any more.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted

message: Hmm.  Looks like the article is being recreated under another name: African aesthetic.  Friday (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not any more.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreation