Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talakaipau


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Talakaipau

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The author Lolopapalangi/Anacrossan have used this article Talakaipau and Hala 'o Vave to insert her own claim for the Namoa as King story in which editors have agreed and deleted the Namoa article for WP:Verifiable WP:Sources WP:Original research.

The Articles Nuku'alofa, Hala 'o Vave, Kolomotu'a, Talakaipau are all vehicles used by the same author to make the riculous claim that was deleted in the Namoa article. We have amended the Nuku'alofa and Kolomotu'a articles and the Namoa article was deleted after the AfD discussion. Hala 'o Vave, Talakaipau and other articles may be used by the author to host her discredit claim that was deleted before by the editors consensus.

In that case, this article is only a vehicle for the same claimed that was deleted for after three years no one can verified Anacrossan claims and she did not even verified her claim with inline citation.Puakatau (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, the creator is trying to remove the AfD tag on the page. Drewbug (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The articles Talakaipau and Hala o Vave are neutral and fact based! Puakatau stupid and false claim that it is used as vehicle to assert claim for Namoa as King is another false claim of Puakatau. I have mention on various times that Namoa was the the childhood title of Tupou. Tupou was later known as Siosaia Tupou. Is Puakatau too dumb to understand that Tupou in his adult life, therefore he will be only known by early missionaries and documentations as Tupou! Tupou who later known as Siosaia Tupou was the owner of his heredidary residence Talakaipau. His own heirs still hold and registered as title holder and owner of Talakaipau Residence !

It was not Aleamotu'a who own Talakaipau but Siosaia Tupou( Namoa) who own Talakaipau and his heirs are still the owners of Talakaipau residence to this date!

Why Puakatau twisted the truth and facts and try to made out that Aleamotu'a is Siosaia Tupou? Stop the lies, Puakatau,because never in any early records in Tonga was ever recorded that Aleamotu'a was Siosaia Tupou, never. It's only Puakatau own rubbish claims who fill in the dots and pretends that Aleamotu'a is Siosaia Tupou! What a joke.

In regards to this threatened to delete this article, as according to the objectives of Puakatau! What are you waiting for ? Delete !! I don't give a damn!!

Anacrossan (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Independent Sources that contradict your claim

These are an independent verification of what I have come to conclude, that Aleamotu'a was known as Tupou or Josiah (Tonganised as Siosaia or Sosaia) Tupou. Talakaipau ownership is Taufa'ahau and still the current King.

1. "Josiah Tupou, bapitised thus in 1830 (Lawry 1850:238). Was also named Aleamotua and Tupouifaletuipapai (Gifford 1929:87). In 1826 he was appointed as Tui Kanokupolu – the hereditary title of the present King of Tonga – and he died in 1845."

By: Schütz, Albert J, The diaries and correspondence of David Cargill, by David Cargill, 1832–1843; 1937 ,page 26

2. "Aleamotu‘a’s main worry was that the non-Christian chiefs would reject him as the possible successor to the title of the Tu‘i Kanokupolu. He was installed on 7 December 1827 as Tu‘i Kanokupolu but continued worshipping in secret. However six months later he determined to confront the intimidation of the non Christian chiefs and began to attend worship publicly. He was baptised on 10th January 1830, taking the name of Josiah, together with his three sons and two daughters in the presence of a congregation of six hundred at the chapel in Nuku‘alofa."

By: Niumeitolu Heneli T., The State and the Church, the state of the Church of Tonga, 2007; www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/2236/2/HNiumeitolu_PhD.pdf, page 129

3. In September 1833 Thomas complained of Aleamotu‘a extending his rule to the church, “Tupou has behaved as though he wished to be a Pope,” he wrote.

By: Niumeitolu Heneli T., The State and the Church, the state of the Church of Tonga, 2007; www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/2236/2/HNiumeitolu_PhD.pdf, page 131

4. “Le Vicaire apostolique n'hésita donc pas à descendre dans la grande île avec le P. Chevron; et, comme l'usage le demandait, il alla d'abord à Noukou-Alofa, où, sous le titre de Toui-Kano-Kopolou, résidait celui qu'on regardait comme le chef de la féodalité tongienne, sous la haute suzeraineté du Toui-Tonga. Le titulaire du moment était Aléa-Matoua, appelé Sosaïa depuis son baptême wesleyen ; son nom a été prononcé dans l'exposé de la guerre de Péa.”

By: Monfat A, Les Tonga; ou, Archipel des Amis et le R. P. Joseph Chevron de la Société de Marie, 1893, page 184

5. This group of Tahitian, with their checkered record, formed a significant bridgehead at Nuku'alofa for the entry of the Wesleyan, whose discouragement border on despair, until they found in Aleamotu'a (Tupou) at Nuku'alofa the chiefly sponsored they needed. By: Garret John, To Live Among the Stars; Origin of Christianity in Oceania, 1982. page 71

6. Fale Tuipapai: Houses laid out in order. The vault, in which is buried King Josiah Tupou (Aleamotua), in the cemetery ...[fale, house; tui, placed; papal, laid out in order].

By: Willowdean Chatterson Handy; 1922; Tattooing in the Marquesas; ‎Page 56

CAN YOU PROVIDE VERIFICATION FOR YOUR CLAIM?Puakatau (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a Discussion to see if this article is worth to keep

Anacrossan, this is a discussion to see if this article is verifiable and true. The AfD is to force you to verify your claim as truth and not biased. It has been years and your claimed has not been verified by any sources. What we found out is that these sources contradict your claim.. So you should have your say why your story is true then verify it with something like a first hand account published by people who were at these events. READ THE REFERENCES Puakatau (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Let's calm down, please. This article appears to be about a residence used by the King of Tonga. The question for this AFD is whether such a residence is notable, and - if so - whether there are reliable sources to show that it is notable. I don't know how this AFD relates to previous AFDs on other articles, but we're not here to debate that - we need to discuss this article and its merits. For my part, the article needs a lot of cleanup, but that's not a deletion issue. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Essence of the article

The article title is about a Residence belong to the King of Tonga, however, the article claimed that it belong to another family who were King is totaly false and not supported by any citation.

The claimed that Namoa was a King is false and have not been verified with any inline citation. The Namoa article was deleted after three years with no inline citation and AfD discussion.

The Namoa was King claim were inserted in various article by the same author and it has been 2-3 years with no inline citation in these various article.

This conclude that this article should be deleted as it is false and wrong as it does not have any citation for verification. Puakatau (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep without prejudice to a further nomination with a coherent deletion policy-compliant explanation of why this should be deleted. The nominator has only described a content dispute, rather than giving any reason why this article should be deleted rather than edited. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

2 years without inline citation

 * WP:Verify That means there is no citation and sources.
 * WP:Sources The sources does not support the article, this is more of an original research.
 * WP:NPOV The article is biased to a discredit claim of Namoa as King.
 * WP:Note Is it important to keep? The only important thing it is a place where cooking are done for the Royal Family.
 * delete; The article is a host for a discredit claim and was created in bad faith. Puakatau (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * NB The above !vote comes from the nominator. Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unreferenced therefore unverifiable. If the sources actually exists, then the proper publishing information is missing. I am completely in favor of giving people time to gather their sources, but two years is about twenty-two months too long in my book. Burn it. Salt if necessary. Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, the online reference provided (above): http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/2236/2/HNiumeitolu_PhD.pdf, does not even contain the word "Talakaipau" or its listed variant "TALA KIAI KUOPAU." I fail to see how the reference provided is at all relevant to the issue at hand. It tests the limits of the assumption of good faith. Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2010 (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.