Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rastaman


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 19:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Rastaman

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a blatant WP:POVFORK of Rastafari. It synthesizes sources to suggest the argument that "modern" Rastas around the world, only understand the movement in external terms of ganja, dreadlocks, and reggae, and are unaware or indifferent to any other Rastafarian doctrines, co-opting the term 'Rastaman' in the process. This happens to be the same description as those whom the actual movement derides as "wolves in sheeps clothes". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POVFORK like Eulenspiegel said --Numyht (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The nominator seems to be POV-forking himself, trying to conservatively prohibit the broader understanding of the cultural phenomenon that grew out worldwide from the originating movement (and supported by sources mentioned in the article). He could expand the article to mention his opinion, but instead tries to destroy it attaching artistic comparisons. Not to mention that those "external terms" helped greatly through the times to spread knowledge about the movement to reach its modern popularity. The nominator may see the situation only from the country where he lives and may be unwilling to accept views from different countries (Russian Rastas, observing whom made me write the article, are noticeable phenomenon in Russia, but the nominator is unaware of that, and doesn't want to believe in them because he never seen them). It's not "synthesizing sources", it's truth. --ssr (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not sure what "POV-forking" means, please read WP:POVFORK, that well summarizes the nature of this article. I am not forking anything at all, and it would be beyond ridiculous to claim the established, multi-editor article is a "fork" of the brand-new, single-editor one.  There is nothing in your new article scope that could not be better addressed in the old one, but with proper reliable sources being required, and NOT a synthesis (please read that link too) of totally off-topic blogs... like, the op-ed for a US political candidate that merely mentions offhand a comedian putting on a "Rasta hat" [sic], being used somehow to back up any kind of scholarly observation about contemporary Rastafarians!!! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, you're not "POV-forking", but POV-pushing. The hat story shows us that the symbolism is used outside primary context — the article is about that, too. I wanted to gather (multi-editor) information on international developments on the subject in a separate article — just to keep the original article out of information on who you call "wolves". That's, in my view, expanding of the subject, not "forking". But they exist, and you can't get rid of them by deleting an article. Particularly, they exist because Rastafarians, let's say, "monopolised" culture of cannabis smoking and the leaf image and attracted many people to their culture via that, who may not truly understand the religion (it's very diverse anyway) but still like reggae and some pieces of philosophy — and now you call the attracted newcomers a "wolves". No, they are not wolves, but peaceful people who want to be united through some common symbols that let them recognise each other (in the name of Jah). --ssr (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My problem is that you have not used any WP:RSS that argue your basic introductory premise, just cites to Urban Dictionary (open-source, meaning anyone can write it), and a couple of European editorials mentioning a guy wearing a Marley shirt and a comedian putting a "Rasta hat" on a puppet for political satire! It seems like an article for a novel (SYNTH) argument. A notable phenomenon that is reliably sourced may certainly have a dedicated article, though - perhaps a properly done article on the 'Rastamany' would be in order. And note, I did not call them 'wolves', but pointed out that is how some who don't go in for the doctrines or are 'wannabe's', are indeed viewed within the original Rastafari movement. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quite tricky asking for scholarly researches: there are very little, if any, of them (at least non-English countries), because we deal with culture of drug usage which is underground and may be poorly noticed by scholars, but well noticed by general public who write about them in sources such as Urban Dictionary, Guardian and, finally, Wikipedia. Please express your concerns in the article, but don't try to destroy it! --ssr (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell: by the doctrine, a non-black person can't be a "rastaman". My article says that, if there are so many non-black people that call themselves "rasta men", so that it can be. You can't delete them attributing a "fork". --ssr (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is 100% wrong, the distinction made is not in skin color, but in profession or adherence to certain doctrines, which no longer necessarily include racial exclusion or supremacy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "No longer"? So you recognise the conception is evolving. So, my article is exactly about that. --ssr (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete--not just because it seems redundant, but also because its vagueness and editorial problems make it really confusing. The opening sentence already is missing a crucial comma, the lack of which contradicts the actual point of the article (it states that the Rastaman hails from Jamaica...). The section "Local Developments" opens with a statement in passive voice that refuses to make clear what 'local' means. The note on the UK Rastafari church, does that have anything to do with 'Rastaman' as opposed to Rastafari? And doesn't the note on Black Rastafarians in Canada obfuscate the point there also? Now, if this really is about Rastafari movements in Russia, why not have that as the focus of the article, rather than attempt to make it broader (and thereby more important?) than it really is? Drmies (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The section "Local Developments" is almost entirely based on the Rastafari movement, you can also address your criticism in that part to the corresponding authors (and ask for extra sources there in the same manner you did here). Besides, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and Urban Dictionary can be a reliable source in some cases (too bad you've removed a reference to it; see below my answer to Steve Dufour about scholarly sources). --ssr (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and write an article on Russian Rastamen. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It can't be done (will get deleted in the same way) because Russian aspect appeared as a result of the global process (on which this article starts). There are alike developments in, say, Argentina. Anyway, there poorly can be found sources on Russian or Argentinian or Polinesian developments that meet mentioned requirements — people here ask for scholarly researches, and scholarly researches are offspring of the babylon system which is unwilling to notice such subcultures which may be in opposition to them (and who are now "wolves in sheeps clothes"?). --ssr (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe Wikipedia is part of the babylon system too. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's neutral free encyclopedia for everyone. If it wasn't, Larry Sanger, the scientist, wouldn't leave the project. --ssr (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggestion. If the Russian Rasta movement is significant in its own right, it perhaps ought to get a standalone article.  The instant page might be best as a disambiguation page between Rastafari movement and the Bob Marley album Rastaman Vibration - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2008 (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.