Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keni Naulumatua II

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 02:25Z

[edit] Keni Naulumatua II

Keni Naulumatua II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I can find no credible references to this individual outside of wikipedia. No websites, books, or newspapers that I know of mention him, and no Fijian individual I have consulted - apart from the primary author of the article - has ever heard of him. I suspect this article may constitute original research. David Cannon 00:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - can we merge this debate with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keni Naulumatua --Xorkl000 04:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I see no reason why not. If the others agree, let's do that. David Cannon 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• MAIKELIS COMMENT

This individual exists birth records and Fijian afairs boards records and Native land trust board records will show this, David let me ask have ever even been to Fiji who have you asked and what authority do they speak on behalf, I question your sources David My sources are the Turaga Na Rasau himself which is the identy in question and he was put there by the Tikina of Lomaloma its elders and members of the cheifly clan Valelevu, which was endorsed and documented by the Lau provincial Council which was endorsed by the Fijian Affairs board which is also recognised and endorsed by the Great Council of Chiefs and also recognised by the Native Lands Trust Board.

The question is what are your source to comment so authoratatively on Fijian traditional titles and title holders and Fijian History, when you have no endorsement from any of these recognised Fijian institutions.

You also won't find in any books the title Taukei Nalotu of Solevu village held by Ratu Seva or the Turaga Na Ravouvou of Kadavu Island which is held by Ratu Kini, you probably won't have any references to the Malo of Kaba of Bau Tikina, nor references to the SauTuraga of Macuata to mention but a few, yet all these titles exist as do the individuals who hold them and have a very real history of which it has been documented by Fijian authorites, records which are not public domain but true record nevertheless and only accessable by the respective head clans and their senior kinsmen

WRONG, tukutuku raraba ni yavusa etc. are public documents that are accessible at NLC and FAB, how else would rent money and title disputes be settled in court. Sounds like Mikey is making excuses again for his unsourced pipedreams --Xorkl000 12:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

definately WRONG AGAIN Xork1000 and very misguided obviously you have never accessed any of these records in your life or you would know, only some records are public and even then you cannot access it willy nilly unless for legitimate purposes like if you are of that Matagali or Yavusa or Vanua and that those records are relevent to you and to convert that for public viewing on the internet is a whole other process get your facts straight. - FROM MAIKELI

wrong place for this discussion - especially when the consensus has already been reached about these AFDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keni Naulumatua. My apologies to everyone for adding to it. Happy to continue this at some other talk page. --Xorkl000 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The above argument for keeping fails. We shouldn't have to go to Fiji to verify the notability of the article's subject. We can't just take your word for it, unless sources are provided which both verify the existence of this person and demonstrate how this person is notable then we have to delete it. You're statement that "you probably won't have any references to..." is an argument for deletion. It's not enough for the subject of an article to actually exist, the subject must of documentation proving their existence and importance and that documentation must be openly available to the public. Also, from what little information is provided in the article I doubt that this person is, even if sources are provided, notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Why is this person of particular importance? The article is a stub of only a couple sentences... --The Way 07:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The person is of importance as he is the current Turaga Na Rasau, the Wikipedia Community is given me 2 months to properly format all artlcies in relation to the Turaga Na Rasau and the Tikina of Lomaloma and also provide verifiable references to show the legitamcy of the title and the title holders and variuos information on Lomaloma Tikina and it Villages, thank you for your imput and I will take in board during this process. MAIKELI

Comment Maikeli, I appreciate your desire to develop articles related to Fiji which is something we need. That being said, our policies still hold and the Wikipedia Community has no means of giving anyone 2 months to properly format something. Unless proper sources are provided in the next day or two it is highly likely that this article will be deleted, however this should be done without prejudice to the article being recreated later when sources are found. I'd like to suggest that you copy and paste the article into your user space or save it to your computer so you can repost it once you have found proper sources. Also, please sign your articles by using for consecutive tildas (A tilde is this sign ~ ). Don't let this discourage you, we just need sources in order to keep articles. --The Way 21:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• THANKS

thanks for the advice..you mean I only have two days??? the others said they'll give two months?? am I confused can someone verify my timeframe on all the related articles to Lomaloma Tikina...PLEASE..anyway I have taken everyones advice on board, thank all for your help and input. MAIKELI MB 22:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just a comment

A large majority of the Fiji Articles have no source material at all and the ones that do have maybe 1 or 2 sources some of which don't load when clicked and some are not relible sources, does this mean if my article is deleted that there will be a deletion process for all of these? to be fair and if mine is kept will the same scrutiny be given to all these artlces and the "Ai Cavuti" artle used as a source is off a guys Blog spot, is that all you need? I will post all my sources and I tell I have alot more than all these articles combined, once you see me post them you'll realise, also the above comment applies to articles on Tonga but that is as far as I have looked as I need to spend my time verifying my article to you all. MALO MAIKELI MB 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Maikeli, two days is a general estimate. These AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussions can stay open for up to five days, after which an administrator will either delete or keep the article. As the article stands now I'd assume it will be deleted since it fails to meet notability and verifiability (WP:V) policies which must be met in order for an article to be kept. I suggest you take a look through Wikipedia policies. Particulary important for you would be Wikipedia:Reliable sources, WP:CITE and WP:V. The link on reliable sources will tell you what kinds of sources are needed, WP:CITE will tell you how to cite those sources properly and WP:V is a core policy related to these two guidelines. If other articles on Fiji contain no sources then they are probably good candidates for deletion as well and it indicates that editors simply haven't gotten around to nominating them for deletion yet. If you do have sources on them, however, it would be great if you'd read WP:CITE and use it to learn how to cite those articles in order to ensure they aren't deleted sometime in the future. Remember, if the article is deleted you should feel free to recreate it once you've found some sources. In general, its a really bad idea to create an article if you don't have any sources yet. Only create articles if you can cite them when they are created. Finally, you'll probably also want to read WP:Bio as its closely related to what you are working on. Again, don't be discouraged! We need people like you to work on articles like this, but you'll need to take time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. --The Way 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment, good comments. I wonder though that the consensus here is diverging from that which is developing for Keni Naulumatua, Turaga na Rasau and Mere Tuisalalo. I'm not sure that they should be kept for two months or not, however I think a common way forward for all of these articles should be found as the issues are all the same. --Xorkl000 01:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment and advice

Happy and Prosperous New Year to you ..The Way..thanks for your advice and help..and your absolutly right and I will make sure I am more thorough in future but this was great learning experience for me and for that I am grateful..I feel I can never learn enough..also the way if I have souces like legitimatly published books that are not on the net as well as legal documents and Newspapaer articles are these acceptable and how would I have to quote them, and then load all the other government archived documents later (from Fijian affairs board and Native lands commission)?? please advise MB 21:32, 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.