Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kupuaina


 * 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   merge to Ceded lands. –Juliancolton Tropical   Cyclone  00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Kupuaina

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Non-notable group involved in a notable dispute. Even the article is vague about them: "appears to have been created sometime between October 1, 2008 and November 24, 2008" and is mostly about the thing they're fighting for, not the group themselves. Only one of the references mentions them independently. Only 62 non-Wikpedia hits on Google. Fails WP:N, WP:VER, WP:SOAP. I'm all in favour of them but they don't make the grade as far as an encyclopedia article is concerned andy (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I love Hawaii and I agree that this is a worthwhile effort, but the references really are vague. Notable effort, non-notable group.  Delete with some regrets.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No comment on deletion but a lot of this information and referencing looks like it belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. This should be re-worked and salvaged. Miami33139 (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Appears to be a new group with limited mention, and uncertain future notability.  The article itself definitely would need cleanup, to both references and tone.  Moreover, too much of existing text is on background, not on organization itself.  However, it appears that a couple cites really do mention the organization. LotLE × talk 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   —andy (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.   —andy (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ceded lands. The group does not meet notability as there is no coverage in reliable sources.  However, much of the material in the article is not about the group but rather are about issues with the ceded lands, complete with citations.  As such the material appears to be a good candidate for a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ceded lands as Whpq suggests. This material would improve that article. The references show that the issue is notable, but not the group. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to ceded lands. Aloha. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this article actually fails WP:N. If anything, this group seems to be notable in a specific region, that is also isolated from the mainland U.S. It is entirely possible that this group is notable to that particular region. The first cited reference is to a monthly newsletter from a state agency. This group is the main feature of that monthly newsletter. An independent internet search (and unfortunately this other reference hasn't been cited in this article) shows that a regional broadcast news agency, KGMB9, featured a news story specifically on this group. You can find this at  At that site, you'll also see a video clip of the news broadcast that specifically mentions the group and emphasizes their efforts. At the site you can read text that reads, "Efforts to educate the public on the critical ceded lands case has taken a new form. . . . This is why a group of students from the William S. Richardson School of Law is helping educate the public." A Hawaii based non-profit also wrote about this group,  The organization was also featured on a Hawaii talk radio station (recording available at )I'm not sure I agree with the idea that there is no coverage in reliable sources. This group seems to have gotten coverage from print, broadcast news and radio sources.

"Smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create bias favoring larger organizations." [] "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability . . . ." []

This organization's efforts could be interpreted as being "national" in scale if we consider the potential impacts of this organization's work on the pending U.S. Supreme Court case.

Merge to ceded lands might be appropriate but if notability is an issue, I'm not sure if it actually is an issue here for this regional organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardP1978 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

— RichardP1978 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. andy (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If I may clarify something, I believe I am being "mis-characterized" here. I have not made any "edits" to the kupuaina page at all. I have however, made edits to a few other unrelated articles. My comments above were merely to join the discussion on the deletion of this page. I have not made any edits to that particular page although I believe parts of my commentary could be used for the article in the editing process. --RichardP1978 (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2009 (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.