Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lona (mythology)

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. After a thorough discussion of available sources, rough consensus is that this mythological figure is not verifiable through reliable sources. Sandstein 13:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lona (mythology)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Hawaiian dictionaries do not mention a goddess under lona (cf. Pukui/Elbert: [1]; Andrews: [2], [3]; Parker: [4], [5]). The standard references for Hawaiian mythology refer to Hina and do not mention any Lona (cf. Beckwith and Westervelt). Jan Knappert, the Dutch author of the referenced Pacific mythology: an encyclopedia of myth and legend published about African and Asian mythology preferably and nothing in any Polynesian language. Therefore the references are not trustworthy enough. ThT (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not buying the argument that we should delete an article on the basis that it is not mentioned by certain sources. To start off with, not being in dictionaries is fairly meaningless when we are talking about a minor diety rather than a word. The link to the Westervelt source is in a work titled Legends of Maui: and His Mother Hina. Since our article makes no claim that Lona was Maui's mother (or even mention him at all) there is no obvious reason why we should expect to see her in there. That just leaves Lona's omission from Martha Beckwith's rather old (1940) work as the evidence that "Lona" is an error. Against that there is the Knappert source in the article. Belittling Jan Knappert because he mostly published about Africa doesn't wash. He is obviously a skilled linguist with Hawiian included in his multiple degrees and his relevant work here is reliably published by Harper-Collins. If that was the only place Lona was mentioned there would be a good argument here, but it isn't. I'm seeing Lona in multiple sources. This book for instance mentions her – published by Springer who in other cicumstances their reliability would not be questioned. If a source is unearthed that positively asserts this is an error then I might reconsider, but not on the curent evidence. SpinningSpark 17:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for referring to the dubious citation Beckwith, pp. 214-25 which seems to verify the statement It is likely that Lona is another name for the Moon goddess Hina. The chapter Hina Myths in Beckwith's Hawaiian mythology (pp. 214-225) doesn't mention the name Lona at all, however this would be one of the important sources to check and the page numbers as well as Hina point to the work of Martha Beckwith:
Beckwith, Martha W.: Hawaiian Mythology. Reprinted in Honolulu (Univ. of Hawaii Press), 1996.

In the introduction Katharine Luomala, professor of Anthropology, wrote in 1969: it was the first, and is still the only, scholarly work which charts a pathway through the hundreds of books and articles, many of them obscure and scarce, and through the little-known manuscripts that record the orally transmitted myths, legends, traditions, folktales, and romances of the Hawaiian people. (p. VII) The Univ. of Hawaii Press reprinted the book again in 1996.

The citation in Myths, Symbols and Legends of Solar System Bodies (by Rachel Alexander, ISBN 9781461470670) cannot be verified, because only the fragment of the simple statement Lona in Hawaiian mythology was a is visible. However this book is an amateur astronomer’s guide to the mythology and symbolism associated with the celestial bodies in the Solar System, and even includes some of the legendary tales of people who had or have a connection with these objects. Therefore it is not a reliable source for Hawaiian mythology.

Meanwhile I checked an important primary source as well: David Kalakaua. The Legends and Myths of Hawaii: The Fables and Folk-Lore of a Strange People. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing, 1999. Again, there's no mention of any Lona

WP:WHYCITE requires that the information given is supported by reliable source. Because Lona is not mentioned in any of the scholarly sources about Hawaiian mythology reliable sources are still needed.

Moreover WP:SIGCOV requires significant coverage, which is more than a trivial mention. Therefore trivial mentions in books or other sources are not sufficient for notability.

Best, --ThT (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that a citation cannot be verified because you personally cannot read it is patently untrue. The book exists. The book exists in libraries. The book exists in libraries that anyone can go in to read it. So in theory anyone can verify it, and in practice one person at least (me) has read the entire entry. I accessed it online fine, your lack of computer skills is entirely your own problem, not Wikipedia's. Also, I never claimed the coverage in that book was significant (although it is certainly more than a passing mention), and Knappert's coverage is certainly significant.Spinning Spark 20:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the relevant passage in Myths, Symbols and Legends of Solar System Bodies reads:
"Other Moon deities are female personifications of the Moon. Lona in Hawaiian mythology was a Moon goddess who, perhaps unwisely, fell passionately in love with a man by the name of Aikanaka. They lived happily ever after, at least for many years. They were finally separated by the death of the mortal. This is quite unusual for a goddess."
I wouldn't consider this a reliable source for our purposes. There are no sources cited, and the author is an English teacher, not an expert in Hawaiian folklore. She very probably got this information from Wikipedia in the first place. You might be surprised how often that happens, even in books from normally-trustworthy publishers. Dan from A.P. (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Dan from A.P. (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my vote: I agree that the Knappert source is reliable, but the GNG calls for sources, plural. I discount the Rachel Alexander book discussed above, and I'm not prepared to AGF on the Ramesh Chopra source cited in the article, given the previous issues with failed verification. So I'm still only seeing one useable source. Dan from A.P. (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ON balance, there seems to be some issues with the sources. I would note, its not necessarily up to us to decide with a source is an RS or not - that should really be decided by the RS noticeboard. If the noticeboard validates that source, then it may well stay in and substantiate the content. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I could verify the Knappert source and add the page number. And it is a reliable source from a reliable author, as Spinningspark already mentioned, and I can't see any evidence to the contrary. Just because something is not mentioned in a particular source can hardly be considered deletion criteria, as the nom suggests. Ciridae (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if we can get less sniping about computer skills and more consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the problem here is that Beckwith et al. are talking about the Ai-kanaka and Hina from Hawaiian mythology, which is a very different story to what Knappert relates. Moreover, Knappert specificially says "north Polynesian" not "Hawaiian" as xe does in other entries. These are two different myths, with the one related by Beckwith having nothing to do with a man being carried off to a "White Kingdom". Knappert has the Beckwith one in xyr entry for "Mahina" on page 174, and labels that one "Hawaiian". And Knappert's entry for "Ai-kanaka" just points to both of those.
The problem here is that we have exactly one source, discounting the 21st century fantasy novel than almost quotes Knappert verbatim, for the "north Polynesian" mythical person; compounded by the fact that the one source devotes a mere three sentences to this subject. Worse, it's an Aquarian Press source. (You've all got the 1995 Diamond reprint, the original 1992 publisher was Aquarian.) Let's just say that Aquarian Press, publisher of Douglas Baker's 1977 Practical Techniques of Astral Projection and Rodney Davies' 1987 The ESP Workbook: How to Awaken and Use Your Psychic Powers, is not exactly academically rigorous. Aquarian got Knappert to do three "Aquarian guides" to "African", "Indian", and "Pacific" mythology over the space of as many years, and none of them are exactly scholarly in format. (Notice that when Knappert actually wrote in xyr field of expertise, about Swahili, xe went to Heinemann Educational Books and BRILL.)
For what it's worth, my educated guess is that Alexander almost certainly got this information from Knappert's book, but changed "Polynesian" to "Hawaiian", even though Knappert draws this distinction between the two Ai-kanaka myths. Aquarian Press was in Wellingborough, according to a quick Google Books search, and Alexander's book-jacket blurb says that xe grew up in Nottingham, so Aquarian Press books were probably around. Ironically, Alexander's publisher, Springer Science+Business Media, has a far better reputation than Knappert's publisher does.
But that does mean that we really don't have a good source for either this or the major parts of Aikanaka (mythology) which are also based upon Knappert's Aquarian Press book.
This is only sourceable to a minor mention in one exceedingly dodgy Aquarian Press book. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- With thanks to ThT and Uncle G for their exhaustive analysis of this, I agree that the sourcing, based on their research, is not sufficient to back up this article. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:57, 21 February 2022 (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.