Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Joe Ada

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Joe Ada[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A combination of the article and his obituary notes that he was the Mayor of Yona, Guam (pop. 6,298), an adjuntant professor, a former merchant marine, and a candidate for the legislature. As a local politician and candidate for office, Ada neither meets nor does not meet WP:NPOL. Local officials and candidates can meet it through a variety of ways such as longevity (e.g. Robert L. Butler) or through some sort of enduring nature of their candidacy (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). His time in office and his candidacy do not meet this. It also notes two criminal arrests. The first This article demonstrates that he was never charged for the first arrest and the second claimed arrest may not have been an arrest. This fails WP:CRIME. Note, Ada's predecessor, Pedo Terlaje would be presumed notable as a member of the Legislature of Guam and is treated differently. Mpen320 (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The mayor of a village that had some legal issue, none of which meets any notability standard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he was notable enough to receive a state funeral, and there seems to be enough coverage from sources to support the article. - Indefensible (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable mayor, the sourcing is all local. SportingFlyer T·C 13:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is relying on local coverage against the notability guidelines? - Indefensible (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We frequently use WP:ROUTINE as a guideline for reporting as one of the ways something can pass GNG, but still not be suitable for an encyclopaedia, and it's commonly used when deleting local politicians who have only received local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 15:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems excessive in my opinion. How is a state funeral routine and that person not considered notable enough for inclusion? This might be a source of WP:BIAS that skews coverage for smaller jurisdictions because of limited sourcing. - Indefensible (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like state funerals are for local political leaders in Guam, so just having a state funeral wouldn't be an automatic notability pass. And it's not a source of bias - it's making sure people are "of note" enough... not everyone who receives media coverage is eligible for an article here. SportingFlyer T·C 17:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We know that Wikipedia has systemic bias due to demographics and the construction of guidelines that influence the content even if we do not think we are biased. I think who is considered enough "of note" for inclusion via such discussions passes subjects through a filter which is probably biased on a systemic level. - Indefensible (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty easy though, it's just applying WP:ROUTINE, and reverse bias could exist as well - a mayor of a 6,000 person town in country A shouldn't be any more or less notable than a mayor of a 6,000 person town in country B, if they have only received marginal local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 18:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I lean more inclusionist, personally I would say all such mayors should be considered towards inclusion on notability rather than exclusion. However most such mayors probably do not receive a state funeral whereas this subject did, so that already seems to indicate additional notability beyond just the standard mayor of a small jurisdiction. - Indefensible (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is hard to evaluate local office-holders because news coverage of local jurisdictions varies widely. The subject may have connected friends since the coverage suggests the family requested the state funeral and numerous elected officials reflected on his passing. But all of that does not determine notability. What matters is coverage (and the type of coverage). For me, the publication in USA Today, along with the coverage of his arrests and his death just pushes this over the edge to meeting GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Today article was just a reprint of a local Guam paper. SportingFlyer T·C 17:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly - I did not examine it closely. That said, as all stories are written by local reporters, can we, or should we, distinguish between a reporter writing for the local press and the same reporter writing for a big national organization? Is the local TV reporter who is picked up by CNN or FOX for a breaking story now a national reporter? I don't have the answers but I don't think there necessarily is a clean way to clearly identify a "local" v. a "non-local" story. What matters to me is the substance of the sourcing. Can we write an article that is more than "he exists?" I think it is possible here (if just) - Enos733 (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As stated above, Ada was notable enough in Guam to warrant a state funeral. And a mayor's position holds more weight and influence in a smaller territory like Guam than a larger state, even in a relatively small municipality. Scanlan (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG Lightburst (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we focus on sources please rather than asserting notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message at WikiProject Micronesia asking for input. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I closed this as no consensus, but, per discussion on my talk page, I have reverted and put it in the oldest still open log page. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 23:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source discussion: the first is his mortuary (fails GNG), the second is his policy platform for an upcoming election (routine election coverage), a feature article on the fact he passed away, a six-sentence article about him resisting arrest on the local television news, a separate? resisting arrest video (both of which made the news because he had been a mayor at that point), and two articles about his untimely passing, one of which - the state funeral one - is quite short. The amount of coverage isn't terrible, but traditionally we've held mayors are not notable just for being mayors - they have to be notable above and beyond being the mayor of a town - and the sourcing here is consistent with him being a mayor of the eighth-largest village in Guam. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The USA Today coverage is WP:NEWSPRIMARY, as are both of the other crime articles, and I don't think count towards GNG (or even BASIC) even besides that. The platform is almost entirely quotes. So we're left with... the obituaries? So, list of people offering condolences, etc. What else do we have? Newspapers.com doesn't bring up anything useful. He is a major local political figur, but as the footnote notes: Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.... The subject has not received significant coverage. There is no "in-depth" here, at all. I realise it's just a passing comment, but on the amount of coverage, I'm going to have to disagree with SportingFlyer here, it kinda is. I'm not really sure which sources were being looked at, I have to assume its the same as what's already in the article or posted here, but even more I really don't see why this was requested to be relisted. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I've not seen anything that goes too in-depth on him, just a bunch of individual short news pieces. But I can see an opportunity to combine the sources per WP:NBASIC. SWinxy (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2023 (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.