Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetabakea

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 20:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tetabakea[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Tetabakea was a geoname place used by old Census (Causeway/Tetabakea area) in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, then in Kiribati. It is not a village and does not appear on modern maps. 2020 Census lists all the villages of Nonouti, and there is no Tetabakea. As you can check here (2012) and here (2020). --Arorae (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I copy here a quite surrealistic discussion about this article, between an Admin and I:

Dear User,

May I suppose that you have never been on Nonouti, a wonderful atoll of Kiribati? I was quite surprised when I saw an unreferenced article about Tetabakea, a place I have never heard before (I am a scholar of Oceanian studies), but of course, you can never know everything, even on the country you have studied most. Because it was just sandbox stuff with no reference (until 2008), I move it to Draft. Someone wrote already in 2015: "Appears to be fictitious entry MozzazzoM (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)". So I was quite surprised that you REVERT my move (something always close to some disrespect, without further explanations) but with an article still so limited (no mention of the island of Nonouti, but an anonymous "atoll"…), so I have controlled your refs. One by one. Tetabakea seems not to be a village or a settlement of Nonouti, but just a place name (Causeway/Tetabakea) which was used as a limit area for Census. There is nothing like Tetabakea village in all Nonouti atoll, as you can see in the 2020 Census, where all the villages of Nonouti are listed. You will tell me that this name exists (or existed) in former census. But I will ask you to prove that this place is a village nowadays, it is not, except in your superficial reading of the sources. Have a look on the map. Sorry to tell you that, but it is not finding an old Gilbert and Ellice Islands census (I have all downloaded them in my own library), that you will demonstrate that I may be wrong, but who knows, you might be more smart than me.--Arorae (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make a reasonable point, but you should take it to AfD rather than unilaterally draftifying it. I've provided enough references to indicate that it clearly isn't fictional, but since it may not meet WP:GEOLAND, best to let the community discuss. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To complete my analysis: here is the official report from 2010 census on Nonouti:

Table 11-1: Nonouti population by village 2010: Nonouti Village Population
Abamakoro 104 Benuaroa 84 Teuabu 269 Temanoku 286 Rotuma 405 Autukia 112 Matang 537 Taboiaki 692 Temotu 194
Nonouti total population 2683
Source: 2010 Census

"Taboiaki is the largest village of Nonouti with a population of 662 people (26%). Matang village is the administrative centre of the island and as such has better infrastructure and facilities, it is also the second largest village on Nonouti with 537 people (20% of the total). Benuaroa (a combined name for the islets of Mataboou and Tebuange) village held the least number of the island’s population, with only 84 people or 3% of the total population."

Yours and you may need more explanations, it will be my pleasure.--Arorae (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let the community discuss about fictional places that not meet WP:GEOLAND? I have really no time to make an AfD for dozens of geo names places in Nonouti, all created/invented in 2008, and that are fictional as settlements or villages. Sorry, but an Admin who prefers fiction to reality, will not receive my support.--Arorae (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin in question, I really don't understand Arorae's attitude and actions here. He draftified a long-established article. I reverted and added sources. Arorae made salient points on my talk page as to whether the settlement was still extant. I said he was probably right and directed him to AfD and for that I was excoriated as preferring fiction to reality? Then he moves a whole bunch more articles to draftspace, creates this AfD, and insultingly refers to our conversation as "surrealistic". It's just not collegial. I don't even necessarily disagree with the deletion argument, but I object to the out-of-process use of draftification as a backdoor deletion, and I suspect I won't be the only one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have never said clearly : "[I] was probably right", and I do not excoriated a people (I wrote: "it will be my pleasure" to help), but still do not understand her attitude, trying to find some odd reference that this place really existed. I am not Admin so I do not know that drafting old articles was not the best way, because of collegiality, but it is, imho, a nonsense to keep fiction in the main space, at my humble opinion. Her wording: "I don't even necessarily disagree with the deletion" is the ultimate proof that there is something strange or surreal in her attitude. I am still waiting that she explains me how this settlement could exist… And of course, she will not.--Arorae (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly found sources that indicated that the place-name existed for some kind of settlement in the country at some point. Despite that, you continue to insist that the name is fictional, which implies that it never existed. That is clearly erroneous. I directed you to take the policy-appropriate step of taking it to AfD for a discussion, and you ranted at me about being "an Admin who prefers fiction to reality". I do not. I prefer policy-based actions to inappropriate unilateral draftifications. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"clearly erroneous"? No "settlement" had never this name in Nonouti, if settlement means in English a small village with some people in it. An area called "Causeway/Tetabakea" (not only Tetabakea) was perhaps defined for census purpose by British Colonial Service, and might have existed, but not a village or a settlement with that specific name. I confirm that this article is pure fiction (as a village) and has nothing to do with the list of Kiribati villages — where you add it.--Arorae (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we clearly have different definitions of fictional. Have a good one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a fictitious entry based on the lack of sources and the above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Non-notable location. GBooks had nothing notable, mentions a chief by that name, mentions a child and a measurement with that name. JStor and newspapers.com had nothing. I found no notable coverage of this locale, there was no WP:RS source that described the notability of the location. The article does cite some census reports with that name, which could be used as a justification to keep the article. If an editor feels strongly that the article should be kept, I would happily withdraw this weak delete. Cxbrx (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2021 (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.