- 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator with no objections. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Jerry lavoie 06:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism--Thomas.macmillan 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does appear to be a neologism-- the article linked to, and others I searched for only referred to get down as verb, not as a noun, as the article suggests.--Urthogie 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - This is sourced. It may need to be expanded, but I think it is useful info in an area where the wiki is weak content-wise.futurebird 00:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No argument from me that content on African cultures on Wikipedia are weak content wise, superficial and even sometimes racist. But this article does not help that; it is just another unhelpful neologism.--Thomas.macmillan 01:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a neologism, I just added some more sources. This is an old old old dance stance. Possibly one of the oldest. It's cracking me up that you think it's a neologism!futurebird 02:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have added a blog written by a non notable magazine, Futurebird. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I may be. Otherwise this doesn't count. Especially since the reference to get down is in quotes, which you strangely never see other dance positions referenced in.--Urthogie 02:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The source I added is book, not a blog. Take a look at it again. The link is to a blog, but the source of the quote is a book. futurebird 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. I find it humorous that the disambiguation page for "get down" lists several songs, many of which are excrutiatingly non notable. Yet, the article (as yet a mere stub) treating the phenomenon which is the source of the phrase in these songs (as well as the noun and verb in AAVE) is a candidate for deletion. Did it ever occur to anyone that people might wonder about the origin and meaning of that phrase -- "get down" -- which is the title of all those songs? Or, the origin of the phrase in AAVE slang? I saw the need to begin an article that would explain the cultural phenomenon, how it has survived in the African diaspora, how it has transformed Western/modern dance movement -- particularly in the U.S. -- and its related meanings in AAVE. This move to delete the article is wrong-headed and absurd -- particularly since the article hasn't even been developed yet. Yes, it needs to be expanded, but it's a definite keep. deeceevoice 10:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Why does the dance move always seem to be referenced in double quotes if its an established move?--Urthogie 14:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps because, unlike European dance, black dance has only a fairly recent tradition, if at all, of being codified. Furthermore, "get down" is not one, specific move, per se; it's a posture with different variations, given the often improvisational and spontaneous nature of black/African dance. And even though the posture is significant and important; it has meaning, it's not rigid or codified like, say, a pas de deux or plie in ballet. The get-down in a ring shout is different from the git down in breakdancing.[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Cakewalk, Black Bottom, Charleston, Lindy Hop, popping, locking, breaking, krumping, Yankadi, Macru, Moribayasa, Agbekor, Agahu, Kpanlogo. It seems like black dance is pretty well codified in both Africa and America.
- Affixing titles to dances is a far cry from breaking up a dance up into its constituent parts, prescribing precisely how each movement or pose/posture is to be executed and then naming each one. Please! deeceevoice 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As to your point about Get down referring to several types of dance, one would expect such an overarching style of move to be equally, if not more codified than the specific dances I listed-- but its not...?--Urthogie 15:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I said. And, again, get down is not a singular movement; it is a general posture (which has no prescribed appearance, except that it must be executed with limbs flexed/bent, the waist bent, the torso relatively low to the ground) -- which may be arrived at from/through the execution of a variety of moves. deeceevoice 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm starting to lean towards a weak keep after doing a google scholars search. However, the article seems to treat it differently than the scholars, who refer to it as a "quality" of specific dances. Check out this search. I'll vote for a keep if the article reflects the literature more.--Urthogie 15:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs aren't conditional. Vote keep or delete. I just began the article; it's a stub. It deserves the chance to develop -- just as any other article on any other legitimate topic. deeceevoice 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, but AfD is for not voting. We are trying to build a consensus, not a democracy.--Thomas.macmillan 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah -- right. It seems to me if you truly were interested in consensus, you would at least have tried to engage the editors on the article talk page instead of going straight to an AfD. deeceevoice 18:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After considering everything, I believe the best solution to this article is a redirect to [1] Culture of Africa- Music and Dance--Thomas.macmillan 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It makes no sense to put in in there. This needs its own article. futurebird 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, but AfD is for not voting. We are trying to build a consensus, not a democracy.--Thomas.macmillan 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Get down is an international phenomenon -- and putting it there doesn't help explain how it's morphed into something which has lent its name to all those pop songs with articles of their own. It deserves a stand-alone article. deeceevoice 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find a source that mentions Get down more than one time? Are there ANY sources that describe the movement in any detail? If you can, than it is not a neologism. Until then, I stand by assessment as such.--Thomas.macmillan 06:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone else noted the complete absence of any discussion of this matter on the article talk page (which remains utterly, completely blank) before this AfD was filed? The person who initiated this action made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to discuss this subject, its true nature or relevance, before taking such a precipitous action. It easily could be interpreted as smacking/stinking of intellectual arrogance ("I'm not aware of this, so it doesn't exist; it's made up!"), and/or bad faith! deeceevoice 06:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yale professor and authority on indigenous African cultures Robert Farris Thompson addresses "get down" extensively in his critically acclaimed African Art and Motion and places it within an overall framework of what he calls the "cannons of line form." Thompson addresses get down beyond physical movement and explains how it influences, and is influenced by, the music itself. Thompson states that much of West African music is characterized rhythmically by inclines and declines, both gradual and steep -- crescendos of polyrhythms. (If you've ever heard the drumming of, say, Babatunde Olatunji, then you know what he's referring to.) That's get down.
Thompson also notes the prevalence of the get-down pose/posture in traditional African sculpture, as well -- knees bent, some figures appearing to be squatting. In another venue, Thompson discusses "get down" and capoeira and likens the latter to breakdancing:
During the warm-up exercises, I noticed nothing special – just jumping jacks and leaps and stretches of the kind you’d see at a New York Giants workout in August. But then, in a classic coach’s voice, Vieira led them into the specialized gymnastics of capoeira, and the movements entered the get-down zone[emphasis added]. They looked as if they were break-dancing.
Others have noted the phenomenon using other language. From an article on the history of swing dance:
Lindy Hop, also known as Jitterbug, is the authentic Afro-Euro-American Swing dance. It is an unabashedly joyful dance, with a solid, flowing style that closely reflects its music -- from the late 20's hot Jazz to the early 40's Big Bands. Just as Jazz combines European and African musical origins, Lindy Hop draws on African and European dance traditions. The embracing hold, and the turns from Europe, the breakaway and solid, earthy body posture from Africa [emphasis added].
Here's [2] an article on the web about African art and dance that repeatedly refers to the same "gimme de knee bone bent" aesthetic noted among enslaved Africans in the United States, which so characterizes, still, African American dance. Check out what's been happenin' on the streets of Queens and Harlem.[3][4][5]
The Gahu dance form referred to in the article user Thomas.macmillan precipitously has nominated for deletion is something called a ring shout -- it's a spiritual, transcendent experience. The ring shout is performed across black Africa and in the African diaspora, including in the American South. It's a get-down -- performed feet shuffling, arms akimbo, knees bent. Author and historian P. Sterling Stuckey, in his, IMO, masterwork Slave Culture: Nationalist Theory and the Foundations of Black America, also described the phenomenon of the ring shout in African-American culture, its African origins and its obvious get-down characteristics. As the shout intensifies, the dancers' movements get stronger, the rhythms beat out by the feet get more percussive, and the dancers' torsos get lower to the ground. And they always move counterclockwise. Like southern black folks in the praisehouses and hush harbors, secreted away from the prying eyes of whites and those who would rebuke or punish them for their "uncivilized" manner of worship. Like African-American jazz legend/genius Thelonius Monk jumping up from his piano in the middle of a song, inspired, eyes closed almost trance-like, shuffling around -- counterclockwise. White folks in the audience were amused, mystified. "What the hell's he doing?" Answer: the "Moments of the Sun" -- the persistence of African culture and of African memory! deeceevoice 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AAVE phrases like "Git-downs," "breakdown" as dance [6], the phrase "get down (on) it," "get-down," "gettin' down," "break it (on) down" (in certain contexts) all come from either the posture/motion or the intensity of get down in an African context.
Incidentally, if you click the above link and follow on down the page, there are links to various other African American dances. Note the bent-knee, "low-down" postures of virtually all, if not all (I didn't investigate them, but I know most of the names), of them. deeceevoice 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- deecee, I hope you add all of this great stuff to the article-- I mean so it's not a stub anymore-- I don't think we need to worry about it being deleted at this stage! Wow! futurebird 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No time right now. I've been playing hooky, but I've got some serious deadlines to attend to now. This is an easy way to pull together resources to come back to later -- besides, I'm enjoying destroying the argument that this is a "non-notable neologism." (I ain't heard narruh peep outta MacMillan fuh sum tahm nah. Wunda wey dat bwoi dun wint 2! :p) deeceevoice 02:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- deecee, I hope you add all of this great stuff to the article-- I mean so it's not a stub anymore-- I don't think we need to worry about it being deleted at this stage! Wow! futurebird 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 18:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to be a perfectly valid encyclopedia article candidate. Icemuon 18:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I cant' believe we're even having this discussion. Of course it's notable. Elefuntboy 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Sourced, culturally relevant, of benefit to the reader, encyclopedic. Why was there even any question? I suggest ending this debate early under WP:SNOW. Jerry lavoie 03:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw As the nominator of the article, I am withdrawing it. It still seems borderline encyclopedic, but, with the improvements, it should be kept.--Thomas.macmillan 04:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was (and is still, more or less) a stub. "Borderline"? You should never have opened this in the first place. Next time, try discussing your concerns with editors first
, snowball. :p You can avoid getting trounced in an RfP -- not to mention it's the sensible/obvious thing to do. WP:SNOW, indeed. That's a new one on me -- but very apropos here. deeceevoice 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it because it, in my mind, was a neologism with no references, not because it was a stub.--Thomas.macmillan 05:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stubs, by their very nature, are articles in the making. Again, when you have an objection to an article, or a question, the appropriate and courteous thing to do is discuss it first -- before running to open an RfD. You jumped the gun, plain and simple. If you'd merely taken the time to ask questions about something about which you clearly know very little, this could have been avoided in the first place. You wrote not a single word on the article discussion page before opening this failed attempt to eradicate it. deeceevoice 05:10, 4 February 2007 (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.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SYSS Mouse (talk • contribs) 22:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]