Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namoa

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. While not all of the main participants from the article talk page chose to comment here, I did consider the comments on the talk page as well. There are still fundamental verifiablity issues that will need to be settled before this article can be ready for main space. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Namoa[edit]

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

Namoa article claimed to be King Josiah Tupou of Tonga in 1830 is contrary to Tongan official history. This claimed by the original author can not be verified independently and the sources the claimed is based on is unreliable and biased. All these conflicting issues have been discussed in the Namoa Talk pages.Puakatau (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MAIN Question

1. Who was Tupou that was baptised as Josiah Tupou in 1830?

2. What independently reliable sources that will verify your claim apart from the opposing family claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puakatau (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC) — Puakatau (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the original author has not verified her story with independent, reliable first hand account or verified by a third source. Her claim that Namoa is Josiah Tupou is based on a Biased source of family genealogy and is not a published work but of SELF PUBLISHED as their Niumeitolu Genealogy was published or created by themself. Original author ignore the request for discussion. Puakatau (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete as unsourced speculation, badly enough written that it's very hard to tell what it's trying to say. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate and Delete: I've gone through the talk page looking only at the article creator Anacrossan's (a/k/a Lolopapalangi) comments and ignoring the arguments made by and against Puakatau. When it comes down to the final analysis, Anacrossan, who unquestionably has the WP:BURDEN here only cites two direct sources to prove that Namoa is who Anacrossan claims him to be: a family tree which has not been shown to be WP:RELIABLE and, especially, not self-published and a journal by a Rev. Turner, available only in the original handwritten (i.e. self-published) manuscript, which Anacrossan admits here that he does not have at hand and hasn't said where to find. The rest of Anacrossan's proof based upon the title (or, depending on who you want to believe, clan name) Toupou, birth order, mother's names, etc., is original research even if the sources he quotes are reliable and say what he says that they say. Though Anacrossan continues to beg for time to add sources, the article has existed for over three years without those sources being added. I recommend incubation over userfication because incubation sets a at–least–fuzzy deadline for improving the article and doesn't allow the page creator to simply move the article out of userspace back into mainspace on his/her own volition. Let me note that this "delete" vote is not an endorsement of, condemnation of, or comment upon Puakatau's work or position in regard to this or other Tongan historical matters, but simply a recognition that Anacrossan has not met WP:BURDEN. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does it take three years to add Inline Citation? There is no inline citation that will verify this claimed story. It took me a few months to check and have found that Tupou was someone else not what Anacrossan claimed. Puakatau (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOT Self Published? I dont agree with TransporterMan notself-publishedcomment before. If I refer to the guidance on WP:SPS

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable."

Anacrossan the original editor is the author of the Niumeitolu Family Tree which were posted on their personal page on Bebo. Anacrossan claimed that she is right or expert based on her own Self Published Family Tree or she is a family to Namoa. The family tree is a Microsoft Org Chart.

I think that means it is WP:SPS. The second point is born 1775? Capt Cook visit Tonga in 1777 and recorded his experience. The Tongan could not write or even know what year was it. How did 1775 come about with no Inline Citation just indicate the ridiculous of the story.

I believe when you see its a duck, we should called it a duck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puakatau (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've misread my comment Puakatau, I agree with you, the genealogy also appears to me to probably be self-published, and a handwritten journal is, by definition, self-published. I said, in pertinent part, "a family tree which has not been shown to be ... not self-published". Too many "nots" in that sentence, I suppose. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:00, 3 September 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.