Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whirling


 * 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 redirect to Sufi whirling. The topic is about a form of dance allegedly distinct from the religious practice of Sufi whirling and the Tanoura (dance), apparently itself a form of the Sufi practice. However, despite walls of texts, apparent sockpuppetry and lots of assertions, the editor(s?) who would retain the article has not cited one reliable source that would speak to the notability of this allegedly distinct practice, as described in WP:N. This leads me to discount their arguments for keeping. Consensus is therefore that this is not a notable topic suited for a separate article, and that the content related to the various whirling practices needs to be reorganized. I am therefore for the time being redirecting the page to the Sufi form, but editors may make whichever editorial changes including mergers or disambiguations that may eventually gain consensus.  Sandstein  11:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Whirling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Of this article's sources, one describes this dance only in its religious context, which is covered at Sufi whirling. All other sources are by or about one non-religious performer. One performer does not mean that this is a notable dance form or cultural phenomenon. Ibadibam (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The whirling page is being deliberately created to distinguish and differentiate the page from whirling practices that have a religious intonation. Viapastrengo (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, but there's no evidence that such practice is notable and needs its own page. Couldn't this simply be covered by a section on secular dance in the Sufi whirling article? Ibadibam (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Even in secular Sufi whirling, the traditional connotation and practice is limited to male performers. Second, Sufi whirlers make clear that the ritual is NOT to be considered a dance, whereas whirling dance artists explicitly define their artform as a dance.  Given the religious/spiritual origins of Sufi whirling, and the highly controversial nature of dance in various Middle Eastern/Islamic traditions, the whirling page explicitly disclaims that it is purely an aesthetic dance form, versus some sort of a secular variant of Sufi whirling.38.29.152.83 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed as by 38.29.152.83 (talk· contribs)  actually added by Viapastrengo (talk·contribs)
 * I understand that they are different topics. I'm saying that the topic covered at whirling is not notable, per Notability, because it lacks coverage in independent sources. But it could still be mentioned in the other article, since they are related. Ibadibam (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

KEEP. I saw the dance several times on stage and its unique style should not be mixed up with any other dance. Finally, it is on Wikipedia, so I can send this link to my friends. 2A02:AA16:1102:EA80:E471:3FBE:2E1F:C55C (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment All other sources except the Youtube video seemed to be about sufi whirling. As it happens the Youtube video specified that it's Tanoura. That piqued my curiousity and I googled it. As it happens, it has a page: Tanoura (dance). It's the same concept but performed elsewhere and a little differently. I'm not sure if the Youtube video is actually Tanoura or not, as Tanoura seems to be just like Sufi whirling except done in multicolored outfits. The Youtube video has Nicole McLaren (you'll run into this name a lot if you search for information about whirling) performing a slightly modified interpretation of the sufi dance. I don't know if whirling in itself is notable as a search for it produces 95% dervishes and Tanoura seems to just be a multicolor version of it. Maybe Sufi whirling could just be about the dance itself, Whirling, and yet even still mostly be about sufi whirling, possibly with an "also known as sufi whirling in the lead. (Changed my mind, a WP:SPLIT would probably be preferable, from the master whirling article.) --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep — There are a variety of factors that would justify the article's inclusion and dislocation from related topics like Sufi whirling: (1) Sufi whirling and tanoura dances from the Middle East emphasize a religious or spiritual or meditational core, whereas the contemporary genre of whirling is not just a 'secular' version of Sufi spinning, but a completely different dance style altogether (I.e., non-repetitive choreographies) (2) a search of several whirling terms shows many influential choreographers and performers; (3) gender and cultural differences described in comments above are significant reasons by themselves to support a standalone page for this dance genre; (4) numerous national and international journals have covered "whirling" as a dance form distinct from Sufi whirling forms;", and (5) the fact that this dance is now apparently featured in large dance festivals and sustains entire dance troupes of regional and international notoriety suggests growing prominence. 128.177.108.246 (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to the journals to which you refer. We're looking for significant coverage in reliable sources. Ibadibam (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - clearly notable per discussion above. 38.29.152.83 (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * '"KEEP''' - Sufi spinning is religious. Tanoura and whirling are stage dances and have nothing to do with religion. Tanoura MUST use the typical egyptian tanoura skirt and specific music and movements, and usually egyptian male dancers perform it. Whirling is contemporary and has totally different choreographies, costumes and settings. Often performed by women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.91.39 (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sufi is religious. Tanoura and whirling are stage dances. Tanoura must use the tanoura skirt and is folkloric. Male dancers perform it mainly. Whirling is contemporary and totaly different in choreography, music, costume. 188.155.91.39 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - We saw some shows with whirling dances, both in Germany/Stuttgart and Switzerland/Zurich and other places, which were completely different in style, costumes and choreographies from the Dervish dances. We think there is a new dance style established called Whirling.188.155.91.39 (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? There have now been three similar !votes from 188.155.91.39...are these three different users? Ibadibam (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional comment I realized that the current article is written from a fairly faulty perspective. Sufi whirling is the practice of the "whirling dance", but with a religious motif and style. Non-religious whirling in itself doesn't merit its own article but a merge. I think an article about the whirling dance would be merited, with mentions of 1. sufi, 2. tanoura and 3. "modern". Current article needs a heavy redo. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By "current article" do you mean whirling or Sufi whirling? Thanks, Ibadibam (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whirling. Sufi whirling is a fairly large article and well-done, so if there were a master article, there would probably just be a WP:SPLIT (a Further information link) to the Sufi whirling article under the Sufi whirling subsection, maybe with a short summary (I'm unsure about the complete policy when it comes to WP:SPLIT). --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -  Thank you Ibadim and Mr. Magoo for your inputs. I respectfully disagree though on the mixture and blending of these three topics under one article. Sufi whirling is not a dance in any sense, and for a sufi, the sema, their religious rite, is a way to reach the unio mystica, the unison with the divine, through movement. It is neither meant for an audience nor as a personal form of expression, both of which dance is. It is offensive for a sufi to be called dancer, and although the term "derwish dancer" is used, it is done so without the correct cultural understanding of a religious practice that originated in 13th century Konya, Turkey. In sharp contrast, whirling and tanoura are both dances, and whereas tanoura stems from Egypt and is practiced there as a folkloric dance, whirling shares solely part of the spinning technique with tanoura, but is apart from that alltogether different. Both styles are performed AND taught separately in the dance community worldwide. Dance festivals, dance schools, workshops and regular classes. A tanoura dancer would never call himself a whirling dancer and vice versa. The approach in both is even oppositional. Tanoura is only tanoura if performed with a tanoura, that typical Egyptian full-circle skirt. It is its main feature. There is a specific set of movements performed with that tanoura. The choreographies thus follow a certain strict pattern. Whirling is freed of all of this, some dancers do not even use a skirt of any sort at all, but wear trousers. Then the music is mainly Egyptian in tanoura, usually folkloric. To use a western song in a tanoura dance would be unthinkable. The same is true for fusion movement, prop or costume elements from other cultures. Therefore, these two dances are clearly distinct from one another in regards of 1. Who performs them, 2. For whom they are being performed, 3. Costumes, 4. Music, 5. Choreographical approach, 6. Props, 7. Where they are being performed, 8. Modern/folkloric traits et cetera. To merge whirli g and tanoura would be like merging jazz dance and hiphop, because they share some basic movement patterns. 38.29.152.83 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not vote multiple times. And the article for Sufi whirling states that it is a customary dance. It also pretty plainly is a dance, with nigh all sources also backing that up. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Sufi whirling (or Sufi spinning) article appropriately begins with the description "Sufi whirling (or Sufi spinning) is a form of Sama or physically active meditation which originated among Sufis..." Later, the article continues to characterize it as a customary dance, but from the initial framing and the essence of the existing article, it is clear that this is not a dance.Viapastrengo (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How can an article that describes an activity as a dance somehow simultaneously make it clear that it's not dance? Dance is not limited to entertainment – the many topics discussed at sacred dance attest to that. Ibadibam (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
This has devolved into a travesty of a discussion, rife with sockpuppetry, repeat !voting and a lot of comments that distract from the grounds I gave for deletion (failure to meet the notability guideline), so I want to restate the problems with the article and see if we can't have a productive discussion limited solely to Wikipedia's guidelines. Let me be clear that I'm not suggesting this content should disappear, but that it be presented in an appropriate context. None of this precludes recreating a dedicated article on secular whirling in the future, should the topic become more notable. I understand that some of the contributors may have a personal connection to the topic, and want it to have its own article to increase public awareness, but Wikipedia is not a means of promotion.
 * Topics that do not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability don't get their own articles, but may be covered in related articles.
 * There is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that could be used to write a stand-alone encyclopedic article on Western whirling, meaning that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's criteria.
 * Because Western whirling is both a secular derivative of Sufi whirling and a Western adaptation of tanoura, Wikipedia can still cover it in the context of those traditions.

At this point, I think the following courses of action are agreeable: and all their friends: the point is well taken that these are three distinct traditions, so please stop repeating the argument. Please understand that we're trying to work within established community standards to save the content at whirling, which is otherwise not going to be able to stand on its own. Ibadibam (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Per 's latest suggestion, make whirling a summary article covering all three genres distinctly, and leave Sufi whirling as an in-depth article. (Tanoura either stays where it is, or gets merged to the new whirling summary, due to being a stub.)
 * 2) Merge tanoura (dance) and whirling into Sufi whirling. The tanoura article says it's performed by Sufis, which would make it a specialized, regional form of Sufi whirling. Both tanoura and Western whirling could be covered as outgrowths of the Medieval Sufi practice.
 * I hadn't even noticed that Tanoura is only a regional form of Sufi. How could I have missed the mention of Sufi in such a tiny article? Nevertheless, this changes some things. I think at this point the merger of the two to Sufi whirling seems more attractive. The decreased value of Tanoura also affects whirling as a separate dance form, as I previously thought Tanoura was completely separate. Previously I established that seemingly there is only a single person practicing the whirling dance separate from sufi. At this point it's WP:TOOSOON to give the dance form its own article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge this and Tanoura (dance) to Sufi whirling. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Sufi whirling or Sufi spinning are not dances.  It would be offensive and tantamount to apostacy in those traditions to describe those particular Sufi movement traditions as dance.  And that sort of categorization is quite dangerous too for male practitioners of Sufi spinning, in light of contemporary global currents.  Islam prohibits dancing.  Sufism is allied or related to Islam.  Therefore, no dancing allowed.  Sufi spinners do so as a practice of transcendence, not as a performative dance.  It is a very tightly-guarded set of practices and traditions.  At the same time, their movement tradition has been appropriated and changed into a touristic entertainment form (again, without calling it a dance) -- so much so, that it's possible to see secular performances of the Whirling Dervishes in particular Turkish or other Middle Eastern settings.  But even these are performed solely by male performers, and are not called 'dances' except in the most figurative / metaphorical of senses.  The articles for the respective pages need to draw out these distinctions and distinguishing features, not gloss over them and collapse them into meaninglessness because it merely seems convenient and economical.  One set of practices is a religious ritual (Sufi spinning and its progeny); another is a set of dance-related topics (Tanoura dance, whirling, etc.).  They are worlds apart, despite some superficial cross-linkages.  Let us be respectful of those particular cultural traditions.Viapastrengo (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is dance (which, incidentally, is how Wikipedia's sources do describe it) does not have any bearing on whether they can be covered in the same article. The entertainment forms are still derivatives of the Sufi ceremony, and can be presented as such. Ibadibam (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment As the originator of the page, I'll immediately need to address the issue of suspected sock-puppetry, which I find empirically unfounded and strikingly chilling. Examining the edit history of the piece shows that the article was seeded with a fairly good sketch of a properly wikified page explaining a subtle but important set of differences in a set of dance genres, or what some would more accurately call, perhaps, "movement traditions."  The notability of the dance form is beyond question, given its prominence in national and international dance festivals, geographic proliferation, and its status as a most expressive form of art.  Since publication, the page has continued to generate interest and growth globally.  The page was linked to a German version, and there seems to be steady growth in interlinking between this page and many others, clarifying the conceptual ripples in something so complex as dance, humanity's arguably oldest dance form.  As appropriate, links to additional sources have been provided by multiple contributors, a heartening Exhibit A in the way that WP is designed to work and function.  The original concerns regarding notability are completely unfounded.  This either shows a disinclination to engage with the actual dance form as it is being developed within the contemporary dance scene, or it shows a strange ignorance to the very point of an article describing any given dance.  Whirling is a dance, and a genre, much like polka is a genre or a dance.  The page clearly establishes that through references and sufficient and authoritative secondary literature.  The WP whirling page, read now, describes an existing term, and a broadly understood separate genre of contemporary dance.  The critiques I'm reading suggest a distrust for the authoritativeness of the literature on dancing.  That, in turn, shows a form of what I'd style 'epistolary chauvenism' -- the fetishization of a particular style of art (the verbal arts like singing, literature, poetry) at the expense of non-verbal arts.  I am completely new to dance myself, and have no other motivation in learning/writing about it than intense intellectual curiosity in this historic art form.  What I have found is a dance literature scene that is so hierarchical and rigid in its classicism as to defy imagination.  Ballet reigns supreme.  In this world, everything else outside of 'classical' dance is tantamount to 'vaudeville.'  Thus, to suggest that a topic lacks notoriety merely because the literature on it is so diffused (different languages, cultures, terminology -- witness the frank admissions of  in the process of educating her or himself on the subtleties between Tanoura as a dance, and tanoura as a costume, and Sufi spinning versus a term like Sufi dancing which would smack deeply of Orientalism in some people's minds.  Dance is apparently a multi-layered, sometimes cabalistic or ritualistic social institution, with its own codes, laws, traditions, and jargon.  Consider any other real or virtual world of which this is true.  Anime, Shakespearean repertories, etc.  The original critiques by  are well taken, and will add additional structure and rigor to the pages in these early stages of their development (each of the whirling sub-genres -- tanoura, dervish, Egyptian, etc. will need to be further developed, and further distinguished from Sufi spinning and other traditions.  That will take a little bit of time, but I see moves in that direction literally every day.  On the topic of this relating to other what I've been calling 'movement traditions,' it must also be kept in mind that relating 'Sufi spinning' / 'Whirling Dervish' solely to dance is increasingly seen as incendiary in some circles.  Dance and particular types of meditation rituals and worship rituals (Inaugurations, parades) have a lot in common, and the most obvious commonality is that dance may be a purely aesthetic dip, or a very particular type of political or resistance action.  Recall the rise of Capoeira.  Therefore, I would caution against cavalier essentializing attitudes towards particular styles of 'dance' or 'movement tradition.'  Don't be ballet-snobs.  Ballet is great, ... it keeps you on your toes, but dance has many mystical and dark and lovely corners that would make even the most classical of classicists within us gulp in humility from the sudden majesty of it all -- a dance that speaks powerfully and cleanly, and, finally, finds form in even textual accounts of breathtaking physical marvelousness.  So, ladies and gentlemen, just relax.  The page is being steadily improved and expanded.  Sourcing is continuing.  There are lots of different contributors working across the global, apparently.  I don't know who is keeping count of votes, as I saw repeat posts, but I vote to bump this discussion anywhere we can get more accurate.Viapastrengo (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The page shouldn't be slowly improved. It should be boldly done over right now by someone who knows the matter. In the past I have completely revamped certain articles up for AfD, but with the articles still ending up deleted. However most of the times the revamps have been successful. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely agree regarding the need for a rapid revamp and improvement, and as can be seen, that's what I and others have been trying to do within a very brief timeframe. Thank you ahead of time for everyone's patience.  What I have learned about dance is that as far as non-textual artistic traditions, it is incredibly old and deep and complex, but as a non-textual art form, it necessarily gets overshadowed in textual settings.  Our shared goal, I trust, is enlightenment.  And so, let us have patience as the necessary sources are culled, translated, cataloged, verified, cross-linked, and so forth.  This is being done as we speak, and frankly, the biggest challenge on my end (speaking solely for myself as the creator of the piece) has been the fact that I have to spend significant amount of time here defending the project.  I'm not new to the game, and am very familiar with WP's notability and related guidelines.  I wouldn't have created if I thought it wasn't notable.  This is not being done as promotion, but is a genuine good faith attempt to carve out a small epistemic slice for a burgeoning set of dance traditions.  Again, thank you for understanding.  Back to editing on this end.Viapastrengo (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can address the sockpuppetry issue at Sockpuppet investigations/Viapastrengo, so let's limit this discussion to the article at hand. Your discussion of arts criticism is very interesting and I actually agree with your arguments, but it doesn't address the "structural" problems of the article, which is what this AfD is about. You say that Westernized whirling is a "broadly understood separate genre of contemporary dance", but you have not given (nor have I been able to independently locate) any evidence that it is "broadly understood". You say there are "references and sufficient and authoritative secondary literature", but as Mr. Magoo has pointed out, nearly all the sources currently in the article are solely about Sufi whirling. The exceptions are the promotional web pages of a handful of non-Sufi performers, which aren't reliable sources, and the Nicole McLaren article, which explicitly states that "whirling dance has not yet become a mass phenomenon" (i.e., it is not yet notable) and actually seems to make no distinction between "whirling" and tanoura dance. Wikipedia must be representative of sources. It's not our place to ascribe significance to a topic when there are no sources to document that significance. Perhaps the lack of sources on the phenomenon is evidence of "epistolary chauvinism", as you say, but it's not our role to remedy that. But let me repeat my central assurance to you, which is that no one is arguing this topic shouldn't be covered, just that the way we have three articles covering one tradition and its outgrowths is confusing and inefficient. Ibadibam (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of confusion and conflicting literature on Whirling. Clarifying this confusion was and remains one of the main purposes of this article, and the linkages between this article and its cousins (Tanoura, Sufi whirling, etc.).  The best way to address Ibadibam's concerns  is for anyone to re-read the Sufi whirling article, and then focus on passages like: "The Western world, having witnessed Sufi whirling through tourism, have described the various forms of dhikr as "barking, howling, dancing, etc."  Barking, howling, and dancing in the minds of Western commentators, and this is sourced to a major encyclopedia.  Then, glance through the Sufi whirling article to try to answer the following straightforward question: "Are women allowed to whirl in the Sufi whirling tradition?" "Are stage performances of whirling necessarily Sufi whirling?" and so on.  To the former question, the answer is NOT at all clear from the Sufi whirling page.  We are taught that some women have been invited, but that this is done, well, you know, how do we say this, on the down low, you know, with the, how do you say this, ah, yes, the other women, so as to not, again, what is that word, oh yes, compromise the spiritual purity of the original trance-like performance of male whirlers.  Read the text of the Sufi sources in the English-language WP page -- it is rife with exclusionary commands, which make clear, Sufi whirling is a man's game.  More importantly, the article accurately states that it is a religious rite of sorts, NOT A DANCE and presumably is performed to a particular musical accompaniment.  The same may be true for Tanoura in the Egyptian context, though it's far more folkloric.  But with Tanoura, still, the name of the game is folkloric Tanoura costumes, and folkloric (i.e., Arabic) music.  Whirling, generally, by contrast, is a genre, and was explicitly described as such from the original page all the way through its various incarnations.  It can be performed to different music, including contemporary pop, can be performed by male and female DANCERS, and is not limited in costume.  To systematize the above, I'm even creating a contrast table to try to capture similarities and DIFFERENCES between these various recognized ritualistic movement forms. But whirling as a dance has been established.  Take a look at the Dr. Oz clip that was put up, and then try to refer a viewer to the existing Sufi whirling or tanoura page to get an explanation of what's happening on screen, or in their local dance festivals.  Chances are, even with significantly reworked Sufi whirling and tanoura pages, the viewer would still be left scratching their head -- (1) is this religious? (2) I thought women weren't allowed to perform; (3) will I be targeted by Islamists for 'encroaching' upon this UNESCO-recognized ritual?  Whirling as written does a really nice job of already explaining the contrasts and providing meaningful encyclopedic information to the reader.  Thank you for your patience with this. Viapastrengo (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We're not here to debate the topic itself, but whether the cited sources in whirling are sufficient to support a standalone Wikipedia article. The proposal is not to remove the content of whirling, but to move it to make a single, more complete article. Ibadibam (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * and Do Not MergeI'm discussing precisely this, the suggestion to merge into a single article. This would be disastrous for a number of reasons, many of which have been articulated above: (1) lack of neutral POV; (2) Orientalism; (3) essentializing; (4) gender-based differences in various styles; (5) contested nature of the term dance to refer to some sort of sacred ritual v. sacred dance, which is acknowledged; (6) single article would be far more confusing than multiple ones that describe different phenomena or practices; (7) political stakes at issue (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/are_muslims_allowed_to_sing_and_dance_.html); (8) etc.; (9) etc.  If someone is seriously suggesting merger, take a moment to read through some Islamic doctrine on dancing and then some popular press accounts and then imagine what a single, comprehensive WP article on Sufi whirling would look like, and what sort of misunderstandings it could inspire.  Whirling, tanoura dance, and Sufi whirling are kind of like Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump -- they're all related insofar as they're all movement traditions (i.e., politicians), but any of the three entail radically different sets of ontological, epistemological and political commitments.  That's why WP encourages standalone projects to develop these topics, while simultaneously encouraging umbrella and category pages, like "folks who want to be president in 2016" and so on.  This seems very obvious to me, and so much ink has already been spilled on explaining this.  Don't merge please, and allow this to develop while encouraging other neutrals to start mediating this discussion.  I don't understand the need to be so entrenched in one's position.  We all seem to be seeing eye to eye, and instead of working together to improve the page, we're slipping into suspicion over one another's motives, and so forth.  Enough is enough.  Let's get to work.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2016 (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.