Talk:Tamapo'uli'alamafoa

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tonga (assessed as Low-importance).

from Tau'olunga's deletion request

"There is no such god as Tamapo, the name is miscopied from Tamapoʻuliʻalamafoa. He is not the father of Laufakanaʻa. He is not the god of heavens in Tonga, only for the outlier of ʻAta. And the fact that no one has touched this article for the last 3 years is only a sign that no one knew what to do with it, not a sign of quality. Also articles without any references are subject for deletion without further ado."

Suggestion for saving

It seems that this article could be saved, because Tau'olunga's deletion reason contains information that shows that there was such a person in the mythology of 'Ata. Why not rewrite the article with the information about Tamapo'uli'alamafoa, then move it to Tamapo'uli'alamafoa? That way Tamapo will become a redirect to Tamapo'uli'alafamoa.

To show that the info is specific to 'Ata, the article could begin this way:

In the Polynesian mythology of the Tongan island of 'Ata, Tamapo'uli'alamafoa ...

and maybe have a line or two near the end explaining the position Tamapo'uli'alamafoa in the rest of Tonga.

Because there is an article about Tamapo on Encyclopedia Mythica, (see [1] you run the risk of someone recreating the article about Tamapo if there is not a redirect in place. Kahuroa 00:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that is best, we can do it like that. (You, me, someone else?). Still I fail to see why Wikipedia should conform itself to Mythica, which seems flagrantly to ignore rules of verifyability, accuracy and so on, so dear to Wikipedia. And with some articles there not changed for almost 10 years I would not be too worried about recreation. --Tauʻolunga 08:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could start it since you seem to have some information. As for E.M., its not a matter of conforming to it, but rather of verification - by rewriting and moving to the correct name. Anyway, I'll start by doing the move Kahuroa 19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub or no stub?

I have the feeling that everything what is known or ever will be known about Tamapoʻuliʻalamafoa has now been written down in this article. Unless someone will invent a timemachine to go back to the olden days before the introduction of christianity there.

So therefore it cannot be considered a stub. Can it? --Tauʻolunga 06:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point - I'm not quite sure whether it should be classed as a stub or not - no doubt someone else will have an opinion about it Kahuroa 07:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]