Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keni Naulumatua
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 until reliable sources found. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 02:24Z
[edit] Keni Naulumatua
I can find no references to this individual in any respected work, online or in print. Very likely Original research. David Cannon 10:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I would doubt that this is truly original research, but rather it is at this point undocumented research. The establishment of notability and the task of providing references are subtly different, although the latter seems to accomplish the former in many cases. Unfortuantely our standards may be biased against a culture which does not have a large repository of online information. We may want to look to the spirit of the guidelines and consider the assumption of good faith. --Kevin Murray 12:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:V. MER-C 11:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with Kevin Murray's comments, but we can't really have have unsourced information in Wikipedia since completely goes against WP:V. The sources don't have to be online though, so maybe the author of this article can let us know where he/she got the information from? Jayden54 12:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Clearly! But is deletion the only course of action? Do we have a procedural flaw at Wikipedia that there is no middle ground? --Kevin Murray 18:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete- fails WP:NOR and WP:V. Full Disclosure - I know the primary author in real life and I happen to have a very low opinion of him. Have a read of our exchanges at User talk:Maikeli and User talk:Xorkl000 for more context. That said this article needs to go. The author has stated himself twice that this is Original Research at User talk:Xorkl000#FROM_MAIKELI and User talk:Davidcannon#FROM_MAIKELI. I think this is an open and shut case. --Xorkl000 13:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)- changing vote to an extremely weak keep (see below) --Xorkl000 03:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- This attack on the author is outrageous and irrelevant to the notability of the subject of the article. As there is a personal relationship here, Xorkl000 should at minimum honorably recuse himself from this evaluation.--Kevin Murray 18:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- agreed, my personal view of the author is irrelevant. The fact is this is original research and thus should be deleted. --Xorkl000 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- This attack on the author is outrageous and irrelevant to the notability of the subject of the article. As there is a personal relationship here, Xorkl000 should at minimum honorably recuse himself from this evaluation.--Kevin Murray 18:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- changing vote to an extremely weak keep (see below) --Xorkl000 03:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - mark as {{unsourced}}, since the article asserts notability (that he held a significant position amongst Fijian nobility). Time spent debating deletion is probably better spent adding sources or improving the article. Tarinth 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well said! --Kevin Murray 18:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure we can give this article a couple of months for it to be fixed, i doubt it will though, and we'll be back here before too long. I disagree that this is notable, but as Kevin Murray says my view may be tainted (which is why i'm sticking with the open shut case of WP:NOR) --Xorkl000 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well said! --Kevin Murray 18:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- do not delete the its of importance to the people of LOMALOMA TIKINA TO WHO THIS HISTORY BELONGS please also note my entry on the Turaga Na Rasau "Ai Cavuti vaka tikina" lists the "Turaga na Ravunisa" wrongly as when it was written there was a period between when Ratu Viliam Fonolahi died and then when Ratu Keni was then nominated by the Vanua of LOMALOMA THE LAU PROVINCIAL COUNCIL AND THE FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD WHO HAVE RECORDS AND WILL CONFIRM THIS, THIS IS A LONG ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND REQUIRES THE SIGNTURES OF ALL THE CHIEFLY FAMILY OF VALELEVU OF LOMALOMA TIKINA this process has already been completed. and the traditional installation would have taken place this year but current political events have changed this and next year looks like a more likely period. there are also early records that are kept by the Fijian affairs board also records in the "Au vola ni kawa bula" (the book holds all the records of titles and title holders and villages and their various families) at the Fijian affairs board which will confirm the soverenty of the "Turaga Na Rasau" please contact them direct before considering this and related articles for deletion. Actually all titles and articles on Fiji should be confirmed by the FAB (Fijian Affairs Board) and the variuos provincial councils to which they belong. many people entering information regarding Fijian traditional titles and history on wikipedia do not have expressed permission of the provinicial councils and the Fijian affairs board and therefore should all be re-considered and reviewed pending the endorsement of the respective councils and Tikinas to which this history and information belongs and it should be endorsed by the Great Council of Chiefs not just of one or two books written by individuals or one or two independant sources. I have the endorsemnet of the reigning Turaga Na Rasau who has the endorsement of the Lau Provincial council and the Fijian affairs board but I am yet to table this before the GCC which will eventually be done by the reigning Turaga na Rasau who represents Lomaloma Tikina and the people of that Tikina who endorsed his instillation he has access to their records with regard to Lomaloma Tikina. Thank you FROM USER MAIKELI
- verifiability not truth! --Xorkl000 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- so I have to go to Suva I am not getting off my outer Island for sometime, I then have to scan all this documentation it will take me a while to do this, call the Fijian affairs board, call the lau provinical council and confirm my articles FROM MAIKELI
- propose we accept this good faith offer and proceed with Tarinth's idea. If this isn't sorted in two months, i'll be the first to nominate this for deletion --Xorkl000 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine. Please update your comment above to Keep. If it isn't sourced in a couple of months, I doubt (but won't promise) that I'll stand in the way of a second AfD. Tarinth 02:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- will do - i think the debate for Turaga na Rasau needs to merged here as well, the issues are exactly the same. --Xorkl000 03:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine. Please update your comment above to Keep. If it isn't sourced in a couple of months, I doubt (but won't promise) that I'll stand in the way of a second AfD. Tarinth 02:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- propose we accept this good faith offer and proceed with Tarinth's idea. If this isn't sorted in two months, i'll be the first to nominate this for deletion --Xorkl000 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I have a pretty good amount of expertise on the Pacific. The Turaga Na Rasau is to Fijians roughly as the Queen of England is to Brits. Deletion is thus pretty ethnocentric. However, the article needs sourcing and it could perhaps be merged into Turaga Na Rasau. And I am sure good sources exist that could be cited, even if some of them need to be primary. CyberAnth 01:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- i'm sorry but thats just utter bollocks. At best this is a minor village title and at worst it exists only in the fertile mind of the author. There are three major titles in Fiji: Vunivalu of Bau, Roko Tui Dreketi, and Tui Cakau - please go and read up at House of Chiefs (Fiji) --Xorkl000 03:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the analogy is indeed roughly accurate, although I should have been more precise to stipulate Fijian inhabitants of Vanuabalavu. CyberAnth 03:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- i'm sorry but thats just utter bollocks. At best this is a minor village title and at worst it exists only in the fertile mind of the author. There are three major titles in Fiji: Vunivalu of Bau, Roko Tui Dreketi, and Tui Cakau - please go and read up at House of Chiefs (Fiji) --Xorkl000 03:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just a minute Correction today the three confedarices are adminitrative introductions of the British Fiji never had paramount chiefs of Confedaricies but rather regional chieftans today the Turaga Na Tui Kaba Na Vunivalu of the confedaracy of Kubuna, currently the Marama Na Roko Tui Dreketi of Burebasaga and Lalagavesi na Turaga na Tui Cakau na i Sokula of the Tovata Confedarcy, the Turaga Na Rasau was formerly in old history part of Kubuna and in modern history Paramount Cheif only of Lomaloma Tikina, by the way the GCC still considers the Queen of England as Fiji's highest Cheif since session of 1874 Malo Maikeli
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- gadfium 04:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)"
- We've agreed that you can take the next couple of months to work on the article and get it improved. Go ahead and get some sources and some better information, and get it in the article! Good luck. Tarinth 13:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay then. I'll keep an eye on this article, and other articles under discussion (Turaga na Rasau, Turaga na Ravunisa, Mere Tuisalalo, Keni Naulumatua II) in the meantime, and give Maikeli the agreed two months to find and add sources for his information. David Cannon 05:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just another minute has not been verified anywhere....hmmm...only by the highest authorities in Fiji the GCC, the FAB the NLTB....anyway point taken I'll get the references MAIKELI —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.62.121.205 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
I do not want to interfere in this debate in which I would not be able to say if the information is the truth or not, but this is an interesting question. We all know how oral tradition is important in all South Pacific and how it can vary from one narrator to another. We could have the same debate about New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, Cook Islands... The question is, should Wikipedia tolerate informations when there are no written sources ? I think it should, if the author of the article explains where and how he had the information and if the tribe concerned or the clan, or any legitime owner of the story is agreed to reveal it. If I well understood, the author of those articles is himself involved in it. So what is the problem ?
- i think in this case we should let someone outside our community document this information and publish it (where it will get peer reviewed by other experts in the field). Otherwise what you are asking is for us (the wikipedia community) to judge the quality of the author's research methods in collecting oral histories and the quality of his synthesis and conclusion. We should not be doing this - we are simply not qualified. This one reason why we ban original research here - so that such issues are dealt with outside the community, and the information comes to us reliably and verified. --Xorkl000 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I would add, that I really appreciate the articles (from all contributors) about fidji in the english wikipedia. It helps me a lot in my modest constributions in the french one and reminds me a great trip in fidji more than ten years ago. Vinaka and keep on the good job !
Nevers
- I found a reference to a "William Keni Naulumatua" here. Not sure whether it's the same guy or not, though the meeting it mentions did occur during what our article lists as his lifetime. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes that is Ratu Kenis son Viliame or William Fonolahi and also David toganivalu both assisted in the research,thank you that will help and be one of my many sources I'll present, thanks again hit bull. MB 02:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
