Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu

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 of the debate was closed. All articles to be re-submitted individually. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reopened, briefly, for splitting - all articles now re-submitted individually, as per suggestions. Grutness...wha? 08:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahoeitu, Aremata-Popoa and Aremata-Rorua, Atonga, Auahi-Turoa, Avaiki Tautau, Bulotu, Eau, Ele'ele, Hahau-Whenua, Havoa, Hine-Kau-Ataata, I'i, Ilaheva, Iva (mythology), Kahomovailahi, Kalamainu and Kilioa, Kanae, Kapua, Kapuku, Kiwa (goddess), Losi (mythology), Maero, Mahiki, Mahiuki, Makutu, Nga-Atua, Ngaro, Ngaru, Paliuli, Pia (mythology), Pitua, Pua Tu Tahi, Pukatala, Rohi, Rua Tapu, Sava (mythology), Tahekeroa, Tairi, Tapairu, Taringa Nui, Te Toi-o-nga-Rangi, Tele (mythology), Tevake, Tonga-Hiti, Tongatea, Tu-Mea, Tukoio, Tumuitearetoka, Ua, Uekera, Uranga-o-Te-Ra, Vitu, Wahie Loa and finally, Whatu

Huuuuge batch nomination for a number of articles all purporting incorrectly to be items from Polynesian mythology. All seem to originate on the same (extremely dodgy) website, which has caused problems with Polynesian mythology articles in the past. None of these items seems to have much - if any - basis in real Polynesian folklore or myth. I'll leave User:Kahuroa to explain further - he's the one who suggested these for nomination (I'm largely just doing the donkey work of nomination). Grutness...wha? 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all of them, per nom, I agree with the proposal for seperate nominations. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is a waste of my time. --Rob from NY 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and re-nominate. I'm pretty uneasy about a block-delete this large. I'm sure that Kahuroa knows more about all this stuff than I do, but it is against my nature to accept this many deletions on someone's say-so. I think before we can delete an article we need a specific problem. In this case, I'd like something like 'Ahoeitu' is not in the Oxford Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology, etc. But that's something that has to be done one entry at a time. (Is there a wiki-policy about multiple deletions? If not, should there be?) Bucketsofg 02:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to you splitting it up into smaller batches if you wish, but I've just spent the last hour merging them all together into one, so I don't want to do that myself! All the articles do have the same failing, however (they are false), so a batch nomination seemed the logical way to go. Grutness...wha? 02:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In which case don't get involved in the debate and vote at all. I sure wouldn't vote to delete in an area about which I knew nothing, but likewise I damn well better not be voting to keep in an area about which I know nothing. RGTraynor 19:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. The majority of these articles were added by user TUF-KAT over a day or two in late September 2002. He tells me that they derive from a dubious source - Encyclopedia Mythica. Some of these so-called gods are in fact the names of natural elements (like Ua, which means simply 'rain'. They often do not tell you which Polynesian culture the so-called god came from. There was no such thing as a unified 'Polynesian mythology' anyway - altho there were themes that were shared, each island, each tribe had its own tradition and its own stories and if the article does not tell you where the story came from it is meaningless. This causes confusion between the various cultures and languages - often the names in the story are obviously from different cultures yet they are presented as if they were a cohesive whole. Consider the article Kahomovailahi which purports to deal with a Samoan myth. This is impossible because there is no K or H in the Samoan language. Others purport to be Māori yet the names contain letters not found in that language. Kahuroa 02:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

comment. Thanks for the clarification of your reasoning. On the other hand, if one googles 'Whatu', one finds lots of references to a Polynesian hail god. Maybe they're all based on that one bad website, or (as is often the case now) on Wikipedia's article. But if we need verifiability to keep articles, don't we also need it to delete them? Bucketsofg 02:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right - they derive from the sources you suggest. Polynesian HAIL GOD??? How much hail do you think you get on a tropical atoll at the equator? Kahuroa 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But Whatu is a Polynesian word for hail, no? And as a natural phenomenon it is not impossible to imagine a divinity associated with it. Bucketsofg 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the entry above for Ua, I think it explains what's going on with Whatu. Crypticfirefly 06:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, it does hail in Hawaii (though not often). In fact there was a hailstorm there this past weekend. Crypticfirefly 07:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

*Delete, as nominated. Everything seems to be in order. In any case, bad information does more damage than lacking information. Brian G. Crawford 02:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. But how do I know that it's bad information? I'm not trying to be difficult. I just don't think I can give someone a blank cheque this large. Bucketsofg 02:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but it does seem to me that you're asking us to do the equivalent of proving the null hypothesis in scientific method. It's hardly likely that there will be any written or internet source which states outright "Kiwa was not the Maori goddess of shellfish". Grutness...wha? 02:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously that's true. But, as I said earlier, there should be a standard reference work on Maori mythology that someone can look at and say that the standard reference work has no entry. Bucketsofg 03:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, on the topic of Kiwa, see the entry for Kiwa hirsuta. Someone at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute thinks Kiwa is the goddess of shellfish to the point that they'd name a newly-discovered animal after her. Good enough for me. Crypticfirefly 06:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Further comment: User Kahuroa may be able to point to a reference which states that Hinemoana is the Maori goddess of the sea and that her husband is Kiwa. See Hinemoana and Tangaroa. If "Kiwa" is a god rather than a goddess, it would be rather easy to fix the article. Crypticfirefly 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC) I would suggest that he or she drag out "A Concise Encyclopedia of Māori Myth and Legend" again, "Kiwa" is listed in that book, contrary to the statement below. Crypticfirefly 18:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all except those (if any) that provide at least one reference. I agree that the nomination should have been broken up into smaller batches. dbtfz^talk 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: These all appear to be substubs created with very little care, so I don't feel bad about deleting them en masse. If anyone truly cares about these, he or she can recreate them one by one with more attention to verifiability. dbtfz^talk 02:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A pertinent passage from WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. dbtfz^talk 02:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep all unless individually nominated. There is no way to discuss this many articles in one batch nom. The failure to examine them destroys the integrity of the whole AfD process. If there was a problem, these should have been prodded. -- JJay 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • see my comments above. if you wish to split them up, feel free. Grutness...wha? 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I was aware of your comments above. Since I just tried to verify Tapairu and quickly found around 15 printed sources [1], I would instead recommend withdrawing this mass nomination. -- JJay 16:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Merge I randomly clicked five articles, and none have been expanded with any significance in the last six months. If they were worth merit as individual articles I believe more work would have been done. They could all be merged into one article, short of that delete as cleanup. TKE 02:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Change to merge because I don't know the language discussion mentioned, and I didn't see the creater was an admin. So merge until concensus. TKE 04:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep since the creator of the articles is an admin (User:TUF-KAT) I'll assume good faith. There's something fishy about most of these articles, but I think it has more to do with poor research than an attempt at a hoax. Eivind^t@c 03:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment some of articles should probably be deleted, but it should be on a individual basis, not a mass-nom. Eivind^t@c 03:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • firther comment. No-one is accusing TUF-KAT of purpetrating a hoax. All that is being said is that he created the articles using a reference which has since been shown to be unreliable. It is the website that is to blame, not TUF-KAT. Grutness...wha? 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• I've notified User:TUF-KAT about the mass nomination. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to notify a registered editor that you are bringing his/her article up for deletion. Everyone should be allowed a chance to defend an article. I think my voting delete above was a little hasty. It is a large nomination, so I think that the most prudent thing to do in this case would be to merge everything with Polynesian mythology, and let any interested party aggresively clean it up. I'd be willing to do the merges, if necessary. Brian G. Crawford 03:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

TUF-KAT should have known about this, since Kahuroa has approached him about these articles. Grutness...wha? 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea - see my talk page, TUF-KAT was ok with nominating. If we merge these with Polynesian Mythology, how do we avoid giving them credence they don't deserve? Kahuroa 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• No vote at the moment. As noted, I wrote these (most of them? maybe all?) based on a source that is now proven to be unreliable, especially for some reason in the area of Polynesian mythology. (I used the same source for some bits in Celtic and other kinds of mythology, with no significant problems with errors that I know of) The source wasn't cited and is perhaps inherently dubious, but none of that was really considered very important in 2002. I guess I lean towards delete, but I won't vote that way without a source on Polynesian mythology that doesn't use these words at all. Tuf-Kat 03:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Tuf-Kat, I looked at their Celtic section, BS detector goes off all the time, particularly in the case of "Scotia" article. --MacRusgail 03:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If you go to Amazon, you can "look inside" various books. If you look at the index of Myths and Legends of the Polynesians by Johannes C. Andersen, some of the terms above seem confirmed: Atonga seems indeed to be a canoe-builder; Avaiki Tautau, a name for New Zealand; Bulotu, a Tongan paradise. Now, one or more of these may fail notability. But each should rise and fall on its own merits. Bucketsofg 03:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment. Whatu, discussed above, is in the index as 'god of hailstorms' (p. 206); Uranga-o-Te-Ra is called fifth netherworld in Andersen, 'underworld' in WP entry. Bucketsofg 03:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Anderson's book was written in 1928. Not considered a reliable source these days - but thanks, you might have discovered where they Encylopedia mythica got its dodgy info from.Kahuroa 03:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, one way or another, I don't think that we should block delete all these articles. Bucketsofg 03:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have ‘A Concise Encyclopedia of Māori Myth and Legend’ by Margaret Orbell, Christchurch: Canterbury University Press, 1998. Orbell is a serious, respected researcher. None of these names appear. "Whatu' by the way is Maori for 'stone' - it could not appear with that spelling in any other Polynesian language, so how could it be a Polynesian god?Kahuroa 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept that for each of the entries that identifies itself as explicitly Maori. But, as you say, Polynesian cultures are pretty diverse, so should Bulotu (Tongan paradise) be deleted because it doesn't appear in a Maori reference work? (I'm asking this as an honest question.) Again, each entry has to rise and fall on its own merits. Bucketsofg 04:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Valid point - but nor should something be called Polynesian when it can only possibly occur in one Polynesian culture - Anderson maybe generalised where today we would be specific - sounds like he labels as Polynesian anything that occurs in any culture within Polynesia. Tongan words aren't usually spelt with a B, so that should probably be Polutu anyway. I would doubt that there is a single work that covers all of Polynesia that one could turn to and say 'it's not here'.Kahuroa 04:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now - pending further investigation --MacRusgail 03:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These must be individually nominated. For example according to the New York Times article on the "Yeti Crab," (Kiwa hirsuta), Kiwa is a Polynesian goddess of crustaceans and the source of part of the name. Spot-checking others: Paliuli does mean "paradise" in Polynesian Hawaiian. Crypticfirefly 04:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. I found some excellent resources at The Hawaiian Electronic Library. Crypticfirefly 05:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment: I disagree strongly with merging, these articles do not all share the same problems. Please see entries for Paliuli, Kiwa, and Kapuku-- not all are necessarily "false." Crypticfirefly 06:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Pua Tu Tahi is also verifiable. Are any of you actually reading any of these articles before saying "delete all" or "merge all"? Crypticfirefly 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge maybe they could all be merged to a list on Polynesian mythology, which is a fairly short article at the moment. -- Astrokey44|talk 05:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge these tiny articles into Polynesian mythology, and attempt to deal with their verifiability and/or expand them from there. --Hyperbole 06:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Hyperbole. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Its too large a batch to investigate properly. Merge them all into one, and then re-nominate. We can have a proper look thenafter. --Soumyasch 06:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's why you shouldn't merge: too large a batch of too many different things. Each should be nominated and considered individually. Crypticfirefly 06:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all into one list. Unverifiable entries (or, more likely, incorerct or misleading ones) can be simply removed from the list. -Sean Curtin 06:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• We should be grateful to both Grutness and Kahuroa for bringing this matter to light. Whilst I agree that such a long list poses a dilemma, the fact is this is the kind of thing that gives WP a bad name, even as the effort by the nominators is itself (or should be) redemptive. The ones I looked into seem rife with inaccuracies (e.g. Paliuli referenced above). Bottom line: the nominator has identified a corpus of material whose source is highly dubious, a point which I think has been fairly made above and which gives this mass nomination credibility. He's done his homework, seems knowledgeable about the subject and raised a serious set of issues about articles that have all been authored by a single source. That's yoeman work dammit and we should refrain from whingeing about process and instead be happy that someone has taken the time. I'll vote to merge but would support delete as well. Eusebeus 07:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: what exactly have you identified that is "inaccurate" about the entry for Paliuli? In my opinion it is oversimplified, perhaps, but not "purporting incorrectly to be an item from Polynesian mythology" or "not having a basis in real Polynesian folklore or myth." Agreed, of course, that many of these should have been nominated and Kahuroa was right to bring up the issue. Crypticfirefly 08:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Please accept that I have exactly NO knowledge on this subject. But digging around, I found in Kumulipo (subtitled a Hawaiian Creation Chant) [2] Paliuli is a she, according to Bastian's Die heilige Sage der Polynesier: Cosmogonie und Theogonie. The garden of Eden discussed in the article seems to be a conflation of the reference that Paliuli herself makes to an ever verdant land of the gods where abundant food grows without labor. - that's from Bastian I think.) Eusebeus 09:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't have your Bastian source, but the linked creation chant has Paliuli as a place, not a person. I think you are being thrown off by the line: "Paliuli names an ever verdant land of the gods where abundant food grows without labor. The name is given to fertile spots in deep mountain valleys where in old days children of high chiefs were taken to be reared." It is an odd sentence construction. It doesn't mean someone named Paliuli gave a name to something, it means "Paluilui" is the name of something. If you keep reading, you get to the sentence, "Some say that each district had its Paliuli. Perhaps the name was given to whatever secluded spot was chosen in the district for the rearing of taboo chiefs from infancy without any form of labor on their own part." And then the translated chant itself: "A sea of coral like the green heights of Paliuli . . ."; and "the impenetrable land of Kuaihealani in Paliuli . . ." Crypticfirefly 13:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Also, refer to the references in the article itself, including the recent U. of Hawaii Press dictionary of Hawaiian place names. Crypticfirefly 14:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right - I confess my ignorance. I was also basing itthough on the stanza below, that reads : Born is a child to Po-wehiwehi, Cradled in the arms of Po-uliuli[?] which I read as a derivative.... But I really have no clue! Eusebeus 15:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that "Pouliuli" is a completely different word than "Paliuli." Hawaiian has only eighteen letters so there are many words that look similar. Crypticfirefly 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all: per Dbtfz, clearly the burden of proof has not been met for these articles, they need to go. --Hetar 08:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Kahuroa seems to be the only expert on this issue, and voting to merge articles that are spurious and of dubious accuracy (in the opinion of the guy who knows the subject) is dangerous. If one or two of the above nominated articles are real, they can always subsequently be recreated with verification and a decent source. I think in this situation, the best thing to do is clear out all the rubbish, and start again. Proto||type 08:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Wow. I say Delete all for now, and if someone can provide a reliable source for the recreation of a specific one, they can. It seems very suspect that these articles were introduced 4 years ago and no one has expanded on any of them; if they were real, you'd think someone would have added something by now.--Cúchullain t c 09:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Crypticfirefly. If a spot-check on a few shows they're legitimate than a wholesale delete is inappropriate. Marskell 10:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment as they might be a little disputed...--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as they appear to be unverifiable from reliable sources. WP:V is non-negotiable. Just zis Guy you know? 11:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Could you please explain what you mean "unverifiable from reliable sources"? Picking a term at random, Tapairu, I immediately found roughly 15 printed sources that would seem to verify the article. [3]. -- JJay 15:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 14:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per CrypticFirely. The articles should be judged individually, since there's clear evidence that some are either verifiable as they stand, or at least can be repaired. Monicasdude 14:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (again). The Dictionary of World Mythology lists 'Ilaheva as a Tongan worm goddess; presumably this means that Ilaheva can be kept. Bucketsofg 17:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into one large list, pending further investigation and expansion of these article into something that's actually worth reading. Ashibaka tock 17:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Polynesian mythology and let the cull begin by the experts. Alternatively, if that would bring down the quality of that article (which presumably bears more hits and is thus more important), maybe we could merge them all into one list, then contact some of the main stars of the Polynesian mythology article history to let them know it needs their attention? Jdcooper 18:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Further Comment. The Sava and I'i entries seem confirmed by (dependent on?) this book through google boooks Bucketsofg 19:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep
• Most of these articles are too short to have any worth, and can be recreated if appropriate sources for them are found and cited. This probably seems like a backwards-ass suggestion, but can we just PROD them and see what gets improved enough to remove the tag in five days? Ziggurat 21:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • We apparently don't have a single Polynesian mythology expert here at Wikipedia. If we prodded them they would just get deleted. If we keep them or move them into one list, eventually someone can take out a book from the library and do a run-through. Ashibaka tock 23:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • AIUI "prod" can't be used if there's an even debate as to deletion or keeping, and shouldn't be used on anything that's been kept via afd. As to no experts, we have one - User:Kahuroa. And it was his idea that these should come here in the first place. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Most if not all of these are of questionable validity. However, from the discussion some of these appear to have verifiable sources. Perhaps the best process would be to put a prod notice on them all. Those which lack any verifiable evidence from reliable sources should be deleted. The editors who claim that there is evidence supporting some of these articles can add verifiable sources and remove the prod notice which may lead to these coming back here. They should not be merged into Polynesian mythology unless we have verifiable evidence that the relevant gods exist. Capitalistroadster 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. You can't prod something that has survived AFD. See WP:PROD#What this process is NOT for. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all without verifiable references by the close of the debate. Keep all with verifiable references. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I've got a Polynesian Mythology book from the library and will start going through these. Aremata-Popoa and Aremata-Rorua can be kept, I think. (I've started editing it.) The suggestion to abandon the block deletion and PROD them all is the best idea. Bucketsofg 00:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as based on flawed verification, an unreliable source. Any of them can be still re-created if information based on reliable sources can be found. Gene Nygaard 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Comment Per WP:IAR with the goal of improving the encyclopedia I suggest removing the AfD tag from those articles that can be sourced per discussion above and allow the rest to be deleted. Listing all the articles as separate AfD's will take more time and effort and end up with the same result. Keep per rewrite and merge are terrible ideas given the acknowledged factual problems with some of these articles. Meticulously following the process should not result in leaving bad information here for all to see. Thatcher131 16:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal

Given the length and complexity of the above debate, I propose the following:

• to pull the batch nomination;
• to re-submit these items individually, over the course of the next few days.

Normally, withdrawal of a nomination would entail a wait of a considerable time before re-nomination, but in these circumstances I doubt that that is necessary. I'll wait a day or two in case there are any objections to this proposal (which should be lodged here). Grutness...wha? 03:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• agree. I've been working through some of these articles to see if they are worth saving. Quite a few of them should be simple deletions. There are some, however, that are salvageable. Bucketsofg 03:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Heartily agree. Though I think you might get away with small batches in some cases where the entries are of similar quality and are logically related. For example, Ngaru, Tumuitearetoka, and Tongatea all seem to be part of the same story. Crypticfirefly 03:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight 04:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• agree. The issues are complex in some cases - and require an in depth understanding of Polynesian language, culture, and history, as well as of the mechanics of the oral transmission of traditions. Which is why someone can say 'Avaiki-Tautau is a Polynesian name for New Zealand' without realising why that is impossible given the geography involved and the nature of the oral tradition. And I don't think this kind of mass deletion was the right way to go. My main aim is to guard against Wikipedia becoming another source of 'tradition feedback' where incorrect printed information ends up being incorporated in the traditions of the peoples involved - like the 'Great Fleet' hypothesis - made up by European researchers in the case of us New Zealand Polynesians. Kahuroa 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agree - I don't fault the nominator for trying the batch approach initially, but evidence has arisen in the discussion above to show that the articles need to be considered individually. Johntex\^talk 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agree - smaller batch. You might also want to put a fact tag on the articles. --MacRusgail 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - merge is a terrible idea given that these articles are not merely stubs but have multiple levels of factual defects as well. The suggestion to prod the articles and allow thost that can be sourced to be rescued should also work in principle, however as there is no requirement that the "deprodding" editor actually improve the article, we'd just end up here anyway. Thatcher131 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay...

since there seem to be very few objections to the proposal, I'm going to start re-afd'ing these individually, starting at the end of the alphabet, in batches of 10-12. I'm putting all of them up - that way any which appear borderline can hopefully get a bit of scrutiny before they're kept (it'll also make it less likely that I'll miss one in the crowd!) Grutness...wha? 05:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently all those from Tevake on have been resubmitted. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

...everything from Paliuli on. Two more batches of 14 after that should finish it. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

...everything from Kahomovailahi on. Grutness...wha? 03:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK done. Grutness...wha?

[edit] NOTE TO ADMINS

Please do not close this document until the last of the afd's have been re-done. That should occur within the next 48 hours. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK done, thanks. Grutness...wha?

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.