Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daggafari

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daggafari

[edit]
Daggafari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was started and largely edited by the creator of the neologism "Daggafari". Redirection to Cannabis in South Africa, the suitable main article for this topic, was declined. As it stands, it's a clear WP:CFORK. No reliable sources have been given which discuss the neologism in detail. Slashme (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article focuses on the evolution of the contemporary cannabis (daggafari) culture of South Africa in relation to the history of cannabis laws and racism in South Africa. (See WP:SUBPOV--11:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)) Renaming the article to Cannabis culture would not suffice because this is not a general article about global cannabis culture but the unique history of specific to the South African cannabis culture. Although some aspects of the Daggafari article can be found in Cannabis in South Africa it is not in violation of the content fork guidelines. Just how the hippie or beatnik culture is not in violation of the content fork guidelines. (see WP:RELAR & WP:RELART--11:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)) Further more, the notability of the terms has since been lodged on the talk page. Although the term is relatively new, it is a label that has been accepted & used by the dagga culture of South Africa in general as well as prominent figures in the South African cannabis culture such as the Dagga Couple and the Dagga Party of South Africa. The stigma surrounding dagga is still very much alive in South Africa and mainstream media prefer to use sensational word to describe the culture by using words like pothead etc thus it has not been covered by mainstream media. This shouldn't however be the only merit to determine notability. Furthermore the Afrikaans Language Commission is currently discussing to include the Afrikaans words for Daggafarian in the list of Afrikaans words. I do not believe the article should be deleted even if the consensus should be reached that the term is not notable as the article does not focus solely on the term but the subject or culture that the term refers to. I believe the nominator was wrong to delete the contents of this article and create a redirect to a poorly structured piece that itself needs a lot of work to present less of a list and more of an article. I don't think "reliable" sources can be found in a country that still revels in the stigma and pseudo-science of the subject, eg. where the reliable sources in the country publishes mostly unreliable pseudo-scientific and stigma pieces on the subject. This term is mostly used by the South African cannabis culture and is preferred over being called a pothead. Please consider the entire article and do not base your decisions solely on the word. Again the article can be adapted and should not be deleted as it contains critical info not contain in other articles and deals with a focused subject that does not appear in other articles. COI has been noted on the af:Daggafarianisme article and it is what transformed it into its current shaped as I started learning more about Wikipedia guidelines. I am a fairly new user but am able to think for myself and apply myself neutrally to the subject. Other than the contesting of the title and main introduction this nomination carries no substance and should not result into a delete. Thus it appears the nominators reasoning is not based on Wikipedia guidelines but need for the removal of the implication of racist cannabis-Apartheid history of the subject. If you are able to follow the nomination for deletion of the Afrikaans version this will be echoed in the sentiments where notability was not contested by the majority. (Mostly only the historic content relating to cannabis laws and racism was contested, also see the relating talk page EDITED --10:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Where the nomination was raised by a suspected sockpuppet!--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 10:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If your concern is that the Cannabis in South Africa is poorly structured and doesn't cover the topic, that's a good reason to work on that article and include this topic there instead of just creating a fork. It's short enough that there's room to discuss this topic in a few paragraphs.
The comments about the Afrikaans wikipedia are not very relevant here. Who nominated that article for deletion, or how many of the !votes over there mention notability are not issues that affect this discussion. --Slashme (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not quite sure if the content fork applies, but at the very least, this is WP:TOOSOON. A Google search (and yes, I realize that's not everything) for "daggafarian" returns less than 600 hits. This article very much feels like a WP:SOAPBOX in order to promote/market a movement. There doesn't seem to be any actual reliable coverage of the term. But even with that, it's hard to see that it's worthy of a separate article rather than a simple mention at Cannabis in South Africa as a local term for a user. Moreover, the article as written is blatantly POV, which is itself fixable, but I think it does show the promotional aspect of it. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cannabis in South Africa per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As per my notice on my talk page, will never again engage in discussion or debates with fellow wikipedians and will no longer contribute to wikipedia. However I have an obligation to defend my actions because they have been in good faith and there is some notability to the subject. However as pointed out in my notice there is no clear threshold for notability. I find it impossible to believe that after years of service, real world examples of thresholds for notability have not been established and used as evidence for and against notability. There is a consensus that Facebook sources are NEVER permissible but those that believe this must please study the Facebook guidelines. There are exceptions.
    If you're unwilling to engage in discussion, I'd say that disqualifies any comments you make, as discussion is really how Wikipedia works. I'll note though, that the first link you posted is to a closed Facebook group, and is thus not useful as a source. The second link is a 404, which is also useless. And the third link is to something that you, yourself, seem to have written; that's also not a reliable source.
    It's quite true that there's a wide grey area in terms of notability, but as things stand, this isn't anywhere near that zone. You haven't offered anything that this is anything but a neologism (as pointed out above) which you're trying to promote by an article on Wikipedia. If (and I stress the if part) you can find the term discussed in reliable, secondary sources, I don't see any reason why this can't be a brief mention at Cannabis in South Africa, again as pointed out above. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    All but the last link are still 404s. And the last link is a pretty obvious hoax post. And even still, none of that is relevant for demonstrating notability. The simple fact that a few people use a word does not mean the topic is notable. Moreover, this is getting into WP:OR territory in trying to trace usage through primary sources. Once again, what you really need are reliable, secondary sources that discuss the term itself. And even then, there's still the issue of why this term should have its own article rather than a mention at Cannabis in South Africa. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Deacon Vorbis and also my comment here. The contents of this "article" have nothing to do with the articles name, it is not notable enough to be a stand-alone article and barely enough usable content to merge with Cannabis in South Africa. Robvanvee 05:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: None of the historical content & external references is to be deleted without first being merged to the suggested page in the event that the motion to delete is successful. Also there is enough references and content about Daggafari to make a merge possible, laziness isn't an excuse. In response to 404s it is related to your geography maybe eg. censored china. I have tested the links while being signed out of Facebook and they are working. Which satisfies Facebook reference guidelines referring to content not available due to login, no login is required. Rob I believe your intentions here are not unbiased as you are heavily associated with the Dagga Couple & FOFGA and your comment comes just after my publication made its intention clear to investigate your organization. Even though I have already asked you days prior on the talk page you mention, to file your motion, it cannot be coincidental for the delay. Therefor you have a conflict of interest, not in the subject but, by your influence & association. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm definitely not in China (I'm in the US), and those links are definitely no good (FB reports, "The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed." whether or not I'm logged in). None of that really matters, because as has already been noted many times, someone merely using the term doesn't establish notability. Also, demands like "None of the historical content & external references is to be deleted without first being merged to the suggested page in the event that the motion to delete is successful." carry no weight. I would suggest saving whatever information you want in case the article does get deleted. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd recommend that the closing admin rather choose the milder remedy of redirection, in which case the full article history would be available. There's always WP:REFUND if the page gets deleted, though. --Slashme (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic rant
I get that you're feeling frustrated, but one of the reasons that we prefer to merge articles instead of keeping multiple articles on the same topic is because our articles get better balance and completeness when more people are working on the same article and looking at the topic from different points of view. The Cannabis in ZA article will be improved if you can add the perspective of the current dagga politics, but we are seeing a clear consensus that "daggafari" as a term is not notable enough to warrant its own separate article. This isn't dictatorship. It's democratic consensus-building. --Slashme (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever helps you sleep at night bro. No matter the outcome of this nominations, it will one day feature on Wikipedia even if consensus of notability is not reached now.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 15:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: in protest against the dictatorship of cherry picking segments of Wikipedia guidelines to fit POV. I cannot be part of any organization that allow it. I would like some clear examples to demonstrate notability, it doesn't exist for the very reason to bend policies to favor certain views. I believe I have proven notability and the sources are reliable in terms of the guidelines to the type of sources and in the context they have been used. COI doesn't influence notability nor does it influence sources where a clear violation cannot be shown.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 15:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed this. No use in protesting in frustration. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: you haven't so much "merged" the content as "cut and pasted" it, but it's definitely something that the community can work through. Let's continue the discussion of the due weight to give the topic and the tone of the writing at Talk:Cannabis in South Africa. --Slashme (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I was understanding that a merge would involve copy / paste, but because of "COI" on the subject of cannabis am not sure which content must change or be removed and thus did not account for those changes. I just wanted to speed up the process as you intended with redirect. thank you. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 11:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daggafari&oldid=1137756543"