Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hala 'o Vave

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hala 'o Vave

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The author Lolopapalangi/Anacrossan have used this article Talakaipau to insert her own claim for the Namoa as King story in which editors have agreed and deleted the Namoa article for WP:Verifiable WP:Sources WP:Original research.

The Articles Nuku'alofa, Hala 'o Vave, Kolomotu'a, Talakaipau are all vehicles used by the same author to make the riculous claim that was deleted in the Namoa article. We have amended the Nuku'alofa and Kolomotu'a articles and the Namoa article was deleted after the AfD discussion. Hala 'o Vave, Talakaipau and other articles may be used by the author to host her discredit claim that was deleted before by the editors consensus.

In that case, this article is only a vehicle for the same claimed that was deleted for after three years no one can verified Anacrossan claims and she did not even verified her claim with inline citation.Puakatau (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, I don't understand the nomination, or the backstory about other articles. But I do understand that this article is unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without prejudice to a new AfD nomination with a coherent rationale for deletion. The nomination, as far as I can understand it, appears to be describing a content dispute covering several articles about Tongan history rather than any clear reason why this particular article should be deleted rather than edited. In response to MelanieN, this does have four sources listed, so can't be said to be unverifiable. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 years without inline citation

WP:Verify That means there is no citation and sources.
WP:Sources The sources does not support the article, this is more of an original research.
WP:NPOV The article is biased to a discredit claim of Namoa as King.
WP:Note Is it important to keep? This is an area of suburb of Nuku'alofa

delete; The article is a host for a discredit claim and was created in bad faith.Puakatau (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2010 (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.