Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Welch


 * 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 keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Ken Welch

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Notability.

I do not believe that St. Pete's mayoralty is notable enough itself to award Welch his noteworthiness, nor that Welch has otherwise garnered sufficient notability SecretName101 (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC) Notability needs to be demonstrated in the article itself, and the article does not indicate he did anything of significant note. If he indeed did notable work on the Pinellas County Commission or as mayor, the article should say so. SecretName101 (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians,  and Florida. SecretName101 (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. St. Pete is a pretty big city and his status as the first black mayor is noteworthy. Plus the article has a lot of strong sourcing that easily satisfies GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Spanneraol Every place that has had a black mayor will have had a first black mayor. SecretName101 (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep He clearly meets WP:GNG, even though coverage is local. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep notable elected official Andre🚐 03:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andrevan can you expound on the sources of notability? SecretName101 (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * SecretName101, Could you point to a Wikipedia policy that states that notability needs to be demonstrated in the article itself? Is that a brand-new policy?Jacona (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, WP:NEXIST. Curbon7 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. For added emphasis, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article", – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If the notability is neither established by the article itself, nor is otherwise illustrated here in this deletion discussion, then it does not exist though for all intents and purposes. "Trust me brah, he's notable" is not sufficient. lay out a case of noteworthiness here, because the article is not making the case itself. SecretName101 (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying "trust me brah", we're saying this is why you're supposed to do WP:BEFORE. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure @SecretName101 here's a break down of the sources that are already used in the article for establishing notability. Just search google with "Ken Welch" and you'll get a lot of sources, I also when on newspapers.com and was able to get hits there. Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 18:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN, many sources, found lots of material on Google and in the newspaper database.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 10:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is that material trivial or does it establish notability. Please provide examples of material you found on google and in the newspaper database that establish individual notability. Since these sources are not present in the article itself, for them to contribute to making the case for keeping this article, you'd need to outline them here. Other words, you are just saying "trust me brah, I found some stuff" without giving any ability for that material to actually be evaluated. SecretName101 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dr vulpes forgot to ping SecretName101 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Your table illustrates that nearly all of the coverage you are citing is indeed routine local election coverage from local news outlets. Which do not establish that he is notable independently. SecretName101 (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You asked me to lay out the sources and I think I've shown that they pass WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I'm not sure what standard of evidence you are looking for here, maybe if you could help me out and walk me through your thought process a bit it would help me understand your point of view better. Because to me this looks fine, and going over my WP:NPP materials again it again looks like it passes. Just incase context gets lost over the internet I am being serious when asking for help understanding and I'm not trying to make fun of you, be sarcastic or be a jerk. Because if I am this off base then I want to learn why and how I got there. I do respect the amount of time and energy you've put into this project.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 08:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * opss forgot to ping @SecretName101 sorry about that.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 08:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dr vulpes I think you don't have a firm grasp on either of those.
 * The sources you provided in your table actually don't establish the notability needed for those standards. See my previous comment. It's pretty basic that the existence of standard election coverage is not enough for WP:Politician or WP:GNG SecretName101 (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dr vulpes Here and other places you have asserted that the existence of reliable independent sources covering an individual alone is enough for notability. That is untrue. You have to assess what the coverage is and if it indeed outlines a case for notability.
 * Independent reliable sources publish millions of stories every day on subjects that don't meet notability standards. SecretName101 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. First black mayor of a major US City, there are tens of thousands of sources available. Google search of "ken welch" + "st petersburg" yielded 32,000 results, FWIW, and reading into them they provide SIGCOV in multiple, reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG hundreds of times over. This should be a SNOW close, IMO. Jacona (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:BASIC and is presumed notable per WP:NPOL's "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". Significant coverage abounds and is sustained, especially in sources from the Tampa Bay area:
 * gobonobo + c 16:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * None of these stories establish individual notability. It is expected that anyplace a local news paper would publish stories on a mayor. None of these establish significant news coverage, this is run-of-the-mill. Nor are any of these stories that distinguish Welch as having done work as mayor of particular note yet. Perhaps such stories that distinguish him as notable do exist (please find them if they do), but these are not them. SecretName101 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reminder, BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Five of your six articles are Tampa Bay Times articles. That is the opposite of presenting multiple independent sources SecretName101 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * gobonobo + c 16:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * None of these stories establish individual notability. It is expected that anyplace a local news paper would publish stories on a mayor. None of these establish significant news coverage, this is run-of-the-mill. Nor are any of these stories that distinguish Welch as having done work as mayor of particular note yet. Perhaps such stories that distinguish him as notable do exist (please find them if they do), but these are not them. SecretName101 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reminder, BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Five of your six articles are Tampa Bay Times articles. That is the opposite of presenting multiple independent sources SecretName101 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * gobonobo + c 16:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * None of these stories establish individual notability. It is expected that anyplace a local news paper would publish stories on a mayor. None of these establish significant news coverage, this is run-of-the-mill. Nor are any of these stories that distinguish Welch as having done work as mayor of particular note yet. Perhaps such stories that distinguish him as notable do exist (please find them if they do), but these are not them. SecretName101 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reminder, BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Five of your six articles are Tampa Bay Times articles. That is the opposite of presenting multiple independent sources SecretName101 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay if we do keep this at this point. But I don't think any of the arguments laid out point to sources or actions that afford him notability. I'll try to enhance the article proper with some stuff that could arguably, but there is an absence at the moment. SecretName101 (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2023 (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.