Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grass skirt


 * 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 was keep. WP:SNOW. ansh 666 03:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Grass skirt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Persistent attempts to delete this article (speedy, prod, repeated section blanking) from a single editor have become disruptive and make it impossible for anyone else to work on improving this article. To permit a clear consensus to be determined, I thus list it here at AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep A clearly notable topic, whatever the state of a current article is. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. SemiHypercube ✎ 00:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per What Wikipedia is not;
 * A dictionary of definitions~ Defining other cultural clothing in a generic term.
 * A publisher of original thought~ The article is ripe with particular feelings about a topic by one or more editors.
 * A soapbox or means of promotion~ Advocating for a position where Wikipedia's voice of authority has been made to push an idea or opinion even over what the sources claim or say in regards to the subject.
 * A direstory~ Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Is a grass skirt really the things being claimed, or are they a more specific subject as the article seems to indicate?
 * A manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal~ The article depends entirely on the relationship between one factor in relationship to another.
 * A indiscriminate collection of information~ The article, as it stands, is a summary-only description of other subjects.
 * The actual term; "Grass skirt" is not notable, as it is only used to describe other things of true encyclopedic value. The article is best as a redirect to more accurate information.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment No one has suggested this yet. But I am just going on record as opposing any redirect to a non-related article as was done here or to hula. Any suggested redirect must include information on grass skirt and consider its global implication as a term. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And I will go on record as saying you have a record of insensitivity to cultural subjects and have used references in an extremely dubious manner. I am speaking only to your Wikipedia contributions.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So...I suggest a redirect to any appropriate subject be done if and when consensus determines such.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree and believe your insistence that this article is deleted and disruptive editing (I have seen it as such and the nominator of this AFD has seen it as such) thus far to accomplish that objective has based on a goal to censor content that are cultural offensive to you. The grass skirt is culturally insensitive to modern Hawaiian and a non-authentic costume to the traditional Hawaiian dance. I agree with that. Then that should be noted in the article not deleted and censored from Wikipedia. The Fu Manchu moustache is culturally insensitive to my culture and I do not advocate its deletion because the history of racism and cultural insensitivity is important to note and learn from. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a good example of your attacks and assumptions on what I am even talking about. As if I don't have Chinese ancestry. Please. Get over yourself. This was nominated by another editor even after you requested assistance.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * " history of racism and cultural insensitivity is important to note and learn from" not this way sir.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't request assistance. An AFD is actually what I wanted all along. Also I apologize any of my comment which have been taken as personal attack, I was merely commenting on the editing and suspected (I may be wrong for all I know) motive behind the edits. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep...you did indeed request assistance, and yet even with your claim to want this AFD (which I actually started originally, was deleted and then started again..but thank you to Andy for re-nominating) you have yet to !vote. As for your apology, you owe that to more than just me.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia defines personal attacks when it comes to editors, not you. Sorry but that is something I have been attempting to relay to you for years.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked for helps on finding sources not assistance to intervene in your disruptive edits on the page or to any particular user to start an AFD on my behalf. I have only asked that any deletion attempts if it must be done be made through an AFD. You never started a AFD. You tried deleting via speedy delete and then a proposed delete which are not the same as AFD. None of these attempts to delete these ways were removed by me and I did not ask any of the users who made those removals to do so. In the times between these attempts I requested any deletion be made via AFD three times   KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes...you asked for assistance. Please note that you crossed the line here when you say that you didn't ask for intervention. I did not say anything about you requesting intervention. This type of dishonest tactic is unacceptable.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I did attempt to nominate this article for AFD after the speedy was declined. I still much appreciate Andy's involvement. .--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a Proposed deletion (prod as noted in the nomination) not a Articles for deletion. A proposed deletion does not let any other input except outright removal of the tag and deletes the article if the tag remains after 7 days. You’ve been on Wikipedia long enough to know the difference. You made one in 2014 Articles for deletion/Jim Bartels. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, now there you are correct, so I stand corrected. Perhaps it was best that I errored in the attempt, as it got us to where we both wanted. Yet again...I am !Voting and you are still just arguing. Of course..I am as well so, let us leave this for others to add their input.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also...that cherry picked link to an AFD is not my last nomination but does demonstrate my willingness to understand Wikipedia guidelines and policy as well as community input.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge A Grass skirt is simply a historical/traditional type of Skirt, my vote is for the content to be merged into Skirt. The same as Trousers provides historical information. -- Aeonx (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep  - this is surely a notable article of clothing, and the articles has many references. In answer to the above objection that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the article is too long to be a dictionary definition, even if it is currently stub status. Vorbee (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, based on the surprisingly useful citations currently in the article. [I wouldn't have expected sufficient coverage for such a concept.]  They're not used the best, but we're not into WP:TNT territory, and deleting this on notability grounds wouldn't make sense.  Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have expanded the article a wee bit. We have thousands of mentions in literature, both fictional and factual, at our disposal, the term covers traditional skirts of many plant materials, not only Poaceae. I don't see or hear any good reasons for deletion. The concept deserves a mention in skirt, but I don't think a merge is appropriate here. Multiple much shorter articles can be found in . Sam Sailor 14:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per expansion showing worldwide use. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per sourcing and cross cultural relevance. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  20:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not sure of how it looked when the discussion started, but in it's current incarnation, clearly passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep there's certainly enough for an article now, beyond just a definition. The merge target would have to be something like Traditional Polynesian clothing, which is a redlink and unnecessary. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sad to see the article in a less than ideal state, but deletion is not cleanup.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT "The nominator ...fails to advance any argument for deletion ... clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Andrew D. (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, this is quite a reasonable AFD. Haven't you ever seen people nominate something and say "This is a procedural nomination"?  Assuming he's telling the truth (I've not investigated at all, so expressing no opinions), we have someone trying every other way of getting it deleted, and the person's being disruptive, so AFD was a good idea because it would likely result in a clear and enforceable consensus.  Also, pretty much any other type of deletion process would be seen as disruptive during such an AFD, so this has the effect of stopping other kinds of actions: either the disruptive user will stop, or he'll keep it up and become an obvious candidate for a block.  Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems to be more a case of WP:POINT than a procedural nomination. RFC is the correct procedure for editing disputes when you want more input.   Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, AfD is not some general purpose place to discuss article issues. Andrew D. (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I corrected you on this the last time you made this bizarre argument, and requested you retract your !vote for that reason (a request you ignored). This WP:IDHT behaviour is unacceptable, and is adding to the growing case for your being TBANned from deletion discussions. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, mostly per Vorbee, Nyttend, and Sam Sailor.. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, this article had serious problems and needs improvement but it is already getting better. The concept "grass skirt" is common and applies to traditional dress in many cultures throughout the South Pacific including New Zealand, Fiji, New Guinea and parts of Africa. In New Guinea, the flammability of grass skirts is a public health problem in some communities as this article in The Lancet called Grass-skirt burns in Papua New Guinea shows.

As for grass skirts in Hawai'i, that garb was not part of traditional attire and is rejected by contemporary Hawai'ian traditionalists, but was adopted in the 19th century by highly respected hula dancers such as Kini Kapahu Wilson who toured the world in the 1890's promoting Hawai'ian culture. This woman was a giant in Hawai'an history. Yes, the grass skirt was also long associated with inaccurate and sexist stereotypes of that culture, and protests against the grass skirt cliche go back 100 years or more. But we do not deal with that long problematic history by deleting an article about a notable topic, but rather by improving the article using the highest quality sources. We do not impose contemporary Hawai'ian traditionalist concerns on a worldwide encyclopedia, although we must treat those concerns with respect as they are described in reliable sources, by summarizing those sources accurately and neutrally. The bickering in this debate among editors who work on articles about Hawai'i is very unseemly and those editors are advised to control themselves in the future. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cullen328, with a name like The lancet, I figured it was some minor news website with attendant reliability problems, but Elsevier Science Direct is a good aggregator, and Ulrichsweb describes it as academic/scholarly. Good find!  Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We're questioning The Lancet now?! Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Lancet is one of the world's most prestigious medical journals and has been published for almost 200 years. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would this CNN source which mentions the same dangers in a different manner be as reliable for the subject?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course not, . That news story describes a single fatal incident involving a synthetic novelty grass skirt in the context of a party among Merrill Lynch employees. The article in The Lancet is about a public health problem among indigenous people wearing traditional garb, and documents a pattern, not a single incident. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Snow? In July? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * SNOW Keep. Please someone close this unnecessary AfD. AfD is not WP:DR or WP:ANI. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.