Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal status of Hawaii


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal status of Hawaii

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to go against WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV - (WP:UNDUE section -- "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small ... minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia"). Fails WP:V, WP:OR - there are some references but they are of dubious reliability and they include a website (which only fetches 215 google hits mind you) of one of the non-notable claimants to Hawaii. This article itself seems to be the most notable part of the legal debate over Hawaii.

At best, it could be merged with Hawaiian sovereignty movement (although that article itself has its problems). --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * nom del - --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure that everything expressed herein would be considered the viewpoint of "an extremely small minority". Nor is this entirely sourced to a website.  One thing that I am sure of is that WP:NPOV is invoked only when it doesn't reflect the majority's point of view, as with the attempt last week by the guy who wanted to do a French-Quebecois view of Canada's history.  Thus, if someone were to explain the American Revolution as the discontent of British subjects who had been asked to pay some of the costs of the French and Indian War, it would be labelled POV.  On the other hand, the vision of the Founding Fathers would not be considered POV.  Keep in mind WP:BIAS, which asks us to balance out the "white boy" majority among Wikipedians.  Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks like there many reliable sources the issue has existed and possibly still exists (.gov reports, law journals, etc). The article needs cleaning up and more inline citations. Anything not citable or attributable to a reliable source should be removed.  spryde |  talk  14:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are lots of scholarly sources on the issue, some of which are outlined on the talk page. The article needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete.  T i a m u t  15:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was involved in discussing WP:policy at length on the article's Talk. While there was some concern that the topic was a "fringe" view, I believe the consensus now stands that it is a "significant minority" view based on discourse within academic circles. A simple Lexis search will confirm the validity of this finding for you. Granted, this minority view has not been successful in courts or legislatures. Nevertheless, the topic appears to meet all the criteria for covering in Wikipedia. (In addition, even as a fringe opinion, it might be better to treat as a separate article, given the reliable sources on it.) Thanks. HG | Talk 15:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep While the article is largely presented from one point of view, the sources and documentation provided establish notability. Article needs cleanup, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that it avoids WP:FRINGE, although it is a very, very minority view. I was able to view the first source, and its a law review note (drafted by a law student) rather than an article authority by a professor. It may be a stretch to refer to such as a "scholar" but again, that goes to cleanup, not whether the article should be kept. Merger per the nomination may be an option, but frankly, I think this article may be the easier one to bring up to appropriate standards. Xymmax (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Why was this article nominated for deletion anyway? This article was a total disaster before -- and at that time I would have been amenable to deletion -- but it recieved quite a bit of work (and even more discussion!) in the last few months and shows signs of hope. The recent pace of edits may have slowed down lately, but that is a good thing given the previous contentiousness. Strong keep. Arjuna (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a large body of legislation and numerous official reports in addition to history boks and commentary in periodicals dating back to the time of the annexation. At the very least it represents the views of a sizeable minority of Hawaiians. Edison (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Withdraw I obviously misjudged the article. I thought any consensus that was formed on the subject was between a few, strongly pro-independence users but... yeah. However, the article still focuses upon a few claimants that have absolutely no notability whatsoever. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:00, 8 December 2007 (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.