Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kincaid Kawānanakoa


 * 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. Only one keep opinion advanced a cogent argument, and it does not outweigh the delete opinions. lifebaka ++ 01:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Kincaid Kawānanakoa

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (categories)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I personally know His Royal Highness and Live in Honolulu. Since there is a Federal Bill and a state bill to give sovereignty to the native Hawai'ian people, the Ali'i Chief or King would be of relevance.
 * Keep On the contrary, pretenders to non-existent thrones routinely are notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, Jean-Bédel Bokassa, Crown Prince of the Central African Empire, and Reza Pahlavi are some good examples. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  04:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Donde - there's a policy on this somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not policy, but WP:OTHERSTUFF seems to fit... &mdash; Scientizzle 03:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as fails notability per WP:N with no claims of notability that are supported by mulitple independent references.--Michaela den (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of independent sources indicating notability that isn't inherited. I'd argue to merge to his father's article, but there is no real content to merge into Quentin Kawānanakoa; it's probably not worth the WP:BLP hassle to even have a redirect. &mdash; Scientizzle 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 22:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Keep and aloooha. History2007 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to offer a rationale? &mdash; Scientizzle 03:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep - It's not the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, but the site "Hawaii for Visitors" DETAILS THE CLAIM in a way that makes it fairly clear that this is an individual worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The above noted page on the tourist site links back to Wikipedia; not a reliable independent source. The comment about "non-existent thrones" does not seem acurate. If I put up a web site saying I was heir the King of Eastern Carpathia, would that justify a Wikipedia article on me? The examples you give all have sources, at least in some sense independent. In this case, even the kawananakoa.com web site given seems defunct. W Nowicki (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is different than making up a throne for yourself. In this case, this person would be king if the queen of Hawaii had not been deposed. This is well known and documented, and not a case of making stuff up. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  01:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, no question that the Kingdom of Hawaii existed and was notable, so there indeed is an article on it. I have done some work on it if you notice.. I was not the one who first used the words "non-existent" in this discussion. And if, indeed, there were independent sources that documented a claim, then it would be notable, as it is for the articles you cited. But the burden of proof is on the Keepers to come up with such an independent source. If the article does not cite any, then it should go even if you "know it". Someone could always create a new article in the future if he grows up and does make a serious claim. Quentin himself is much more likely at this point, since he was elected etc. but even his article could use more. W Nowicki (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * suggestion How about merging this and other current hawaii royal family folks into a single article? Even if each individual might merit only a rather stubby article, the general topic probably is notable enough to get sufficient sources for a decent article. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2011 (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.