Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tui Delai Gau
- 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 keep. I'm going to close this per WP:SNOW: it is not conceivable that the sources added by Uncle G can be countered, and at any rate the lack of sources appears to be the only rationale. That is now solved. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tui Delai Gau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I declined speedy on this because of the time scale and the former status of the author. The author, not seen since 2009, was an admin and bureaucrat, but with quite a considerable history on their talk page of copyvio problems and AfDs, etc. The reason given for requesting speedy was "There is no any reliable source for this deity. It is possible that there was some confusion about him, because Tui means "chief" in Fijian, so this can be a man, not a god.". I feel discussion is called for. Peridon (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Knappert, Jan (1992). "Tree God". Pacific mythology: an encyclopedia of myth and legend. Aquarian/Thorsons. p. 305. ISBN 9781855381339.
- Waterhouse, Joseph (1866). "Tui Dela i Gau". The king and people of Fiji. London: University of Hawaiʻi Press. pp. 379–384.
- Uncle G (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Uncle G's sources. At a first look I was concerned that there was a grave danger of citogenesis here, because the article has been in for ten years and many of the numerous Ghits are later, or undated, and use similar language; but the Google snippet view of the Knappert book, from
the same yearten years earlier,shows that it has additional information so was not copied from here, and the Waterhouse book confirmsthat this is not a hoax. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I'm fairly sure that 2002 - 1992 = 10. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Facepalm JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly sure that 2002 - 1992 = 10. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Now we know the other spellings of his name. Let this page stay.--Miha (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2013 (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.