Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Kaihewalu


 * 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.  Sandstein  15:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Solomon Kaihewalu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Instructor of Kapu Kuialua (Hawaiian martial art). Article is promotional in nature, and uses references which don't actually mention the person (except one, which is his own website). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * RESPONSE:
 * According to Mike Rosoft, "Article is prootional in nature, and uses references which don't actually mention the person (except one, which is his own website)."


 * The references were made to support statements about Olohe Solomon Kaihewalu and lua itself as a martial art. The reference to Olohe's website is to support the directly quoted material by the subject of the article. If I cannot source articles about martial arts then how in the world am I to tell this story. I challenge Mr. Rosoft to tell me where this is promotional - specifically - because it's obvious he didn't read the article carefully.


 * Marksevi (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Mark Sevi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marksevi (talk • contribs)
 * The very first sentence states "Õlohe Solomon Kaihewalu is the chief instructor of Lua Hâlau O Kaihewalu, a Hawaiian martial art that has been passed from family to family for generations". Lua is a type of martial art, you cannot have a person be a chief instructor of an entire martial art. It's pretty obvious that some sort of promotional text was cut from it.


 * In the last section, it states "Today, Olohe’s lua teachings are disseminated to men, women and children who seek a way of self-defense that reflects both the man-made and natural world in the spirit of the Hawaiian nation." which is definitely not a neutral pov.


 * I'm going to have to go with Delete if the article doesn't become encyclopedic. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 20:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] It is fairly obvious that the article consists of the martial artist narrating about himself. (A part of the article has been copied, with slight rephrasing, from his own website.) It calls him "chief instructor" with no source for such a title. (Exactly what does "chief instructor" mean anyway? The article could simply say "instructor".) It goes into detail about the martial art itself, which is largely off-topic. (We already have the article Kapu Kuialua.) It stresses how his public teaching of the art was opposed by traditional Hawaiians, which probably isn't specific to Mr. Kaihewalu. It uses references which don't mention him anywhere. (Of the five references, only two actually mention him, one of them is his own website, and the other - - is probably sourced to it.) It constantly calls him "Olohe" (which is a honorific akin to "Sensei" - instead, the article should refer to him by name, perhaps use the honorific at the first mention). See the inclusion (notability) guidelines for people; coverage in reliable third-party sources is the primary criterion. See also the policy of neutrality. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've added some new coverage, and the promotional content could be cut out or fixed up pretty easily. He is considered a Grandmaster equivalent in the martial arts world (, has been recognized for his career, and has been covered as notable to his field in Black Belt (big article here, shorter mentions scattered about google). Yvarta (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO ONE POINT MADE BY SOMEONE:

CLAIM: "The very first sentence states "Õlohe Solomon Kaihewalu is the chief instructor of Lua Hâlau O Kaihewalu, a Hawaiian martial art that has been passed from family to family for generations". Lua is a type of martial art, you cannot have a person be a chief instructor of an entire martial art."

RESPONSE: Note that the martial art is lua but the particular martial art mentioned is Solomon Kaihewalu's family's version. The article is not claiming he is chief instructor of the entire martial art of lua, just his family's version which is recognized by martial artists. Marksevi (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Mark Sevi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marksevi (talk • contribs) 23:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete a non-notable martial art instructor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added significant research as of this morning, as well as several awards, etc. Yvarta (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Martial arts halls of fame and ranks have never been enough to show notability. The September 1976 article in Black Belt is significant independent coverage, but it's the only article that I've seen that is.  That seems insufficient to meet WP:GNG, but I'm waiting to see if other coverage exists.  I also don't think WP:MANOTE is met, but I'm open to convincing. Papaursa (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Additional Comment to Keep this article: The Martial Arts Museum in Los Angeles has a permanent Kaihewalu Lua exhibit. Anyone can contact them to discuss Olohe Soloman Kaihewalu's contributions to martial arts:  or visit the wikipedia page for the museum to peruse their efficacy. Marksevi (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Mark Sevi
 * Delete. I reviewed all the citations. After discarding the irrelevant and promotional, I found that I had independently come to the same conclusion as User:Papaursa - the only one of any weight is that of September 1976 in Black Belt. IMO that is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Solomon Kaihewalu has been inducted to the museum's hall of fame (2009 listing) ; see for the induction process. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but these old eyes of mine don't see his name on the list of 2009 inductees. Even if he was on that list, martial arts halls of fame have never been considered sufficient to show notability.  Do you have some other significant independent coverage of him?  That still seems to be the sticking point. Papaursa (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're not feeling deletionist this morning, GNG doesn't clarify how many references are needed to pass (could be just one) - and since the Black Belt coverage is fantastic and deep on its own, we could choose to keep the page on that regard alone. Also, it meets the first "keep" criteria of the supplemental notability guidelines for martial artists:
 * 1) Subject of an independent article/documentary: Sole or majority subject in the media, either a news article or a TV program
 * I don't think deleting the page would improve Wikipedia, especially since it arguably can pass the notability guidelines per GNG and the rule above. Yvarta (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a typo - he is in the 2007 listing, with his name spelled "Sol Kaihewalu". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I don't believe a single source is sufficient to meet WP:GNG and I think that's why the GNG says, in multiple locations, "sources". Heading/teaching his family's martial art is not enough to show notability nor is being in a martial art hall of fame and rank has never been considered enough.  I've been waiting for additional sources, but none seem forthcoming.  My own search didn't turn up any other significant independent sources on him. Papaursa (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete After looking at the references, my analysis is same as User:Papaursa. The Black Belt source is not sufficient by itself for GNG. Given that the magazine is dedicated to martial arts, it is expected that it will provide more coverage. I do not see any evidence that the world at large has noticed the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2017 (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.