Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Kelty


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Frank Kelty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Small town Alaska mayor. His office doesn't grant him WP:NPOL and the sources used in this article are almost all primary and those that aren't don't do enough to substantiate WP:GNG. Possible WP:AUTOBIO or WP:PROMO GPL93 (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 18:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 18:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - I understand that there may be notability guidelines that need to be met here, but I would ask that this AfD be set aside and time be given to develop the article. One problem with these guidelines is that there appear to be specific guidelines for certain fields, such as sports, politics, business, and so forth.  This individual may look insignificant on the Outside, but we are talking about a person that has been the dominant personality in both politics and industry in a town that is the nation's largest fishing port.  Is there a notability guideline that meets that?  And I'm looking at the other AfDs listed, some with no sources, some with false information--these I understand cutting.  I see in another AfD that there's an argument over whether a player has played enough minutes or had enough appearances in a pro-game to merit an article.  I cannot believe that a five-time mayor and major figure of industry in the nation's leading fishing port does not merit more consideration as someone with a 27-minute professional football career.  I really don't know. AFAIK, this has never been subject of an AfD, and it likely has not gotten the attention that could bring the article to the necessary levels to keep it in place.  I ask that some time (and guidance) be given.  It's not like Wikpedia's servers are going to burst if this article is kept in place for another 12 months while it gets properly developed. Unschool 05:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment please note that Unalaska is a city with a population of under 5,000 that is within the nation's largest port of Dutch Harbor, not the port itself. While I understand you on notability guidelines and how sometimes they don't appear to be fair, the ones that you mentioned are inclusionary ones and WP:GNG supersedes all of them. When I did a WP:BEFORE search I couldn't find enough sourcing to establish notability and the article's current sourcing is half dead links and the rest are mostly passing mentions, primary sources, or WP:ROUTINE local coverage. While I certainly agree that Kelty is a very interesting individual, unfortunately pretty often "local legend" subjects fail to meet notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * While I understand you on notability guidelines and how sometimes they don't appear to be fair Indeed, as I note below to User:Bearcat, it just amazes me that if this man had run for the Alaska House of Representatives and served just two years in that office, even with no accomplishments, that this would meet notability guidelines, but five terms as mayor and being the most highly regarded authority on the Alaskan crabbing industry does not meet the threshold.  Sounds like a case for WP:IAR to me.
 * Funny you would say that, as Unalaska has had such an individual in its history, Eric Sutcliffe. I probably shouldn't have gone there, as the Wikipedia community has had a hard time accepting that topics notable in the 1980s are still notable while they keep pushing us further in the direction of "the sum total of all human knowledge as far as the 21st century is concerned". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  04:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the article's current sourcing is half dead links A fair point.  So what would be the harm in giving the article a year to be bolstered by some solid research?  It can be done, but the timing of this AfD certainly does not work with my situation right now.
 * please note that Unalaska is a city with a population of under 5,000 that is within the nation's largest port of Dutch Harbor, not the port itself Not to be pedantic, but it's actually the reverse—the port of Dutch Harbor is entirely within the boundaries of the City of Unalaska.  Not sure that makes a difference, just thought I'd mention it. Unschool 05:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies on that last point, but the other two still stand. As Bearcat notes below, state reps are inherently more notable. Secondly, most of the dead links and most of the sources in general are primary and as I said earlier I conducted a search to find if more reliable sourcing that would establish notability existed and nothing turned up. If he doesn't meet notability standards now there's a fairly good chance he won't be notable within 12 months. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries on the boundaries. I think I didn't register that you had already looked for sources.  Thanks.  I indicate in my notes below to Bearcat that I don't agree about the state legislator thing, but that's nonetheless the standard.  I appreciate your time. Un</b><b style="color: #23CE40;">sch</b><b style="color: #7ED324;">ool</b> 02:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. A population of 5K is not large enough to hand a town's mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as mayors — and no, being "the nation's largest fishing port by volume of fish caught" is not a reason why its mayors would be politically more important than other smalltown mayors, either — but this depends almost entirely on primary sources rather than media coverage that reaches the volume or depth needed to get him over WP:GNG. The notability criteria for mayors is WP:NPOL #2, "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", but that's not what's in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A population of 5K is not large enough to hand a town's mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as mayors
 * Oh, I understand that. But it is not just his role as a mayor. Before and during his political career, he has worked in the Dutch Harbor fishing industry for decades.  He is the most highly regarded authority on the subject, and the state of Alaska has frequently sent him to Washington to provide expert testimony on the industry.  I find it ironic that if he had run for a single term in the Alaska Legislature and served for two years in Juneau, that he would meet notability guidelines, but serving five terms as mayor and being an expert in industry is less worthy of inclusion.  Does that make any sense at all?  <b style="color: #52A249;">Un</b><b style="color: #23CE40;">sch</b><b style="color: #7ED324;">ool</b> 05:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A state legislator is inherently more important than a mayor of a town of 5,000. For one thing, they sit in a statewide body and have the power to vote on statewide laws, and for another, they get real reliable source coverage in media — so they're important whether you care about them or not. For a little bit of context, before Wikipedia formally quantified that state legislators are accepted as notable, we used to have constant circular debates around how much "accomplishment" was enough: did they have to have attained a leadership position to be notable, did they have to have sponsored 400 bills before they were notable enough, that kind of thing — even no-brainer notables were getting challenged on grounds best described as "well, I don't personally give a shit about state legislators".
 * Glaring inconsistencies abound on this topic. We had an editor who not too long ago went around eradicating our coverage of the mayors of Wasilla in order to put more weight on Sarah Palin (speaking of "the sum total of all human knowledge as far as the 21st century is concerned").  The same rationale was applied that Wasilla contains a small population within corporate limits, ignoring that in Wasilla's case, it's a primary hub for an area spanning tens of thousands of square miles and containing at present over 100,000 people.  In one case, it was also ignored that the subject of one of the deleted articles did receive significant coverage because that coverage occurred over 30 years ago.  The same editor who undertook this deletefest has continued to define Wasilla as he sees fit, making edits related to areas outside Wasilla city limits and claiming those areas to be part of Wasilla on multiple occasions.  The mayor of Juneau is a ceremonial mayor of a community with slightly more than 30,000 residents.  When Greg Fisk died just weeks after taking office, the national media made a big deal out of it before dropping the story like a hot potato once they realized there was no boogeyman to be found.  The various media outlets told their audiences simply "the mayor of Juneau, Alaska has died" without further explanation.  Not once did I hear it explained that this is a ceremonial mayor of a place with 30,000 people and as such tends to attract older people to the position, and that it was later revealed he died of causes related to being an older person.  All I saw from the rest of the community was that if the national media made such a big deal out of Fisk, why, we're obligated to do likewise, and that we're further obligated to treat the title of "mayor" as being something more significant than it really is.  As far as the rest of the community is concerned, they are making a big deal out of the mayor of Juneau because Juneau is a state capital and therefore it's okay to ignore that the position is a ceremonial position and the town is a small town, but I have yet to see one person with the temerity to admit that.  I don't have time to look up census data, but I would be surprised if there are 100,000 people in all of Southeast Alaska, which has other hub communities besides Juneau.  Also, it should be all too obvious that plenty of members of the community "don't personally give a shit about state legislators".  Those editors who spend inordinate amounts of time babbling away on project and talk pages and have little time for content may not have noticed that a small group of editors have turned our coverage of legislatures and legislators into their own private POV fork and have been getting away with it for at least seven or eight years that I've noticed, due to the lack of oversight by the community at large. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  04:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And even for "experts" in industry, the inclusion test is still the depth of reliable source coverage they did or didn't get in media. A person testifying in Washington is not automatically notable just because transcripts of his testimony have been published by the government — he's notable if media devote their resources to covering his testimony as news, and not if they don't. These still aren't the sources it would take to make Frank Kelty notable on that basis, because government reports and freelance writers' personal websites and staff profiles on the websites of a person's own employer are never how you make anybody notable enough for a Wikipedia article: the only kinds of sources that support notability at all are media coverage, media coverage, media coverage, media coverage and/or media coverage, and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I follow your points (and agree with all but one) and understand that I'm going to lose this discussion. I recognize that notability guidelines exist because notability is inherently subjective, and such guidelines make it easier to move along without constantly repeating the same arguments.  But this does give me cause to reflect.  I guess I've never thought of myself as an inclusionist before, but I just don't see what is gained by deleting an article that is factually accurate. It's something that no one will be able to look up, because, well, I don't know why.
 * The one argument of yours that I find logically flawed is this: A state legislator is inherently more important than a mayor of a town of 5,000. For one thing, they sit in a statewide body and have the power to vote on statewide laws. Well, by that logic, I could similarly state "A congressman is inherently more important than a governor of a state with 500,000. For one thing, they sit in a national body and have the power to vote on national laws."  I know, there's the media coverage.  I think that's your most powerful point, and I guess your comparison to the state legislators really rubs me the wrong way. I've personally known scores of state legislators in my lifetime, and the vast majority of them had less impact than this man.  And not just this guy--hundreds of mayors are more significant than thousands of state legislators, IMHO.
 * Thanks for engaging me in this discussion. I know you didn't have to spend your time on something like this that is apparently a foregone conclusion. <b style="color: #52A249;">Un</b><b style="color: #23CE40;">sch</b><b style="color: #7ED324;">ool</b> 02:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, you're the one who raised state legislators as a comparison in the first place, not me. And analogizing what I said to "a congressman is inherently more important than a governor of a state with 500,000" isn't relevant at all — congressmen and state governors are both accepted as inherently notable, so there's no notability contest between them to worry about. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete dinky town mayors are not default notable, and there is not enough coverage to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep — Another manifestation of the latest disturbing trend on Wikipedia, namely pushing a concept of political biography which amounts to manufacturing a pecking order of titles, which has precious little to do with anything pertaining to the term "biography". This "dinky town" happens to be of national importance as it contains the top fishing port in the United States.  I don't watch television, but I'm to understand that the mayor of Unalaska is frequently referred to on Deadliest Catch and has been throughout the series' run.  The few higher-tier sources are sufficient enough.  As for the rest of the sources, this is what the Wikipedia community gets for pushing the notion that you source articles with whatever crap one finds lying around the web rather than searching out the best possible sources.  For example, Laine Welch has covered the fishing industry in Alaska full-time for over 30 years.  Google hits are weak, but Kelty appears to be one of her go-to sources.  The map of Unalaska's corporate limits shows that Dutch Harbor is within Unalaska and not the other way around, regardless of what GPL93 may believe.  Bearcat's statement "the only kinds of sources that support notability at all are media coverage, media coverage, media coverage, media coverage and/or media coverage, and nothing else" is a tacit admission that we're here to be nothing more than a news site, another disturbing trend.  Even so, I'd bet that a news archive search would turn up much different results than a Google search.  Why is there such a concerted effort to not acknowledge this resource in just about every AFD I come across lately? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  04:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't grant all poorly referenced articles a stay of execution just because somebody theorizes that better referencing might be available in news archives they haven't actually checked — the key to turning the tide on a poorly referenced article is to show the evidence that the necessary quality and depth of referencing definitely does exist, not just to speculate that it's possible. Not everybody has access to all of the same news databases as each other — if this guy were Canadian, it would take me less than five minutes to do a thorough and definitive sweep of whether he had enough archived coverage to clear the notability bar for smalltown mayors or not, but since he's not, I can only judge the sources that other people actually show. There's no "concerted effort to not acknowledge this resource" happening at AFD: we just don't assume that archived coverage exists in advance of anybody actually showing the actual results of a search for it, which is not the same thing as not even acknowledging the existence of news archives. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete- Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, just because the show Deadliest Catch was filmed in his town does not make the mayor notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete after a review of the sources and my own before search, I see precious little (read: no) significant coverage in non-local sources. Fails WP:NPOL, and the sources which exist do not seem substantial enough to pass WP:GNG, ie standard small town political coverage. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.