Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken McKay

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. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ken McKay

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not credibly state the importance of the person. Never held elected office. Seems to have helped a PAC raised $20 million for Trump, but that doesn't mean WP:N. Speculated candidate for federal judge position WP:TOOSOON / WP:Crystal. Delete or move to draft. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 11:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while this article is a stub, it already has multiple reliable sources which establish notability under WP:BASIC. TOOSOON is an essay. BASIC is a guideline. – Lionel^(talk) 11:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hometown-only sources such as those currently cited don't satisfy WP:BASIC for anyone, and don't help at all when the notability claim rests on being an unelected candidate for office (see, recently, the Marie Newman AfD, which had not only national but also international coverage and was still redirected). Rather, I wonder whether this should be deleted under WP:BIO1E, as much of the national coverage on him I can find deals with the 2010 RNC lesbian bondage club scandal and his eventual resignation over it (see Fox, NBC, The Atlantic, Washington Post, etc.) I also see a few mentions of his hire by Trump in 2016 (e.g. Politico). Question to me is, does that add up to significant coverage and satisfy WP:WHYN, or does it basically exemplify the dangers of a pseudobio? (Reminds me of the Julio Cabral-Corrada AfD, which also raised issues whether accepting thin sourcing would put undue weight on a single unflattering event, in absence of sufficient material to give a full account--whether that turned out to be flattering or unflattering.) Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC does not distinguish between "hometown" sources and mainstream media. In fact, none of our policies differentiate between local and national. Published is published. In fact Note 4 says: "What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad." I don't know if you realize this, but the quantity of sources you have identified certainly satisfy Bullet 1 of WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined." (Ital mine) – Lionel^(talk) 05:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the BIO1E restrictions, I’m not sure they do suffice in combination. But I haven’t decided yet; that’s why I haven’t ivoted. But I do think you’ll find that hometown sources are regularly refused at AFD. I notice you have only recently become active on WP again after a long absence since 2012; most folks who’ve been around through that period can tell you notability standards have become considerably more strictly applied (I’m now considered more “inclusionist” than many because I think hometown or “local” sources should count in some purposes. See for instance this discussion.) Innisfree987 (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This source would be a good non-local addition to the article and might help to expand its content somewhat. However, I am not sure if that is enough to ease the concerns others have expressed here. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is not more to say about a person than "Ken McKay is a political consultant who is currently an executive with Rebuilding America Now. He is the leading candidate for a judgeship on the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island", then there's probably not much out there in terms of reliable sources. Sandstein 17:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that "hometown" sources are afforded much less weight than national or major regional sources when evaluating notability. Most local newspapers will simply publish any story about a local person that they are given on a plate - usually by the person involved or someone close to them. If coverage in a local newspaper was the standard then I, my wife, my parents, my mother-in-law and my children would all be more notable than McKay, but in fact none of us come anywhere near being people that even a very inclusive encyclopedia should cover. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose we set a cutoff between "hometown" and large city sources? Circulation? Population of the city? How does this cutoff apply to books? What about periodicals which have ceased publication? And what about webnews sites that have no circulation and physical location is not tied to readership? Like foxnews.com. What about scholarly journals which are only read by academics? No, we do not discriminate against sources because of arbitrary criteria. If a source is reliable then it's a reliable source. – Lionel^(talk) 02:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.