The result was merge to Ceded lands. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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 [1] 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, [2] The organization was also featured on a Hawaii talk radio station (recording available at [3])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." [ [4]] "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 . . . ." [ [5]]
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) reply
— RichardP1978 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. andy ( talk) 08:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
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) reply