Talk:Pete Holmes (politician)

Deletion discussion (non-notable holder of non-notable office)
Seattle has a strong mayor/strong council governance system and an elected city attorney; these three branches represent the three branches of government familiar in the United States. In this form of municipal government, the City Attorney is an independent office rather than, say, an appointment by the mayor. The upshot of this is that Seattle's City Attorney is generally involved in all the major aspects of city policy which have legal implications (which, you might imagine, is most of them). Moreover, Holmes has proven to be a more active City Attorney than the past few, and has emerged as a well regarded officeholder in the city. The overall impression in Seattle (where, as it happens, I live) seems to be that our mayor is substantially less effective at running his office than Holmes, and that between the two of them the council and the Attorney's Office tend to handle an outsized amount of city government.

My point with this is that I disagree with the deletion request, but I'm not entirely sure how to amend the article. I didn't think that a digression into the structure of Seattle municipal government, let alone the inherently unencyclopedic topic of who is and who is not a powerbroker in Seattle, were things I ought to include. I'd certainly welcome suggestions from other editors. I notice that many politicians have Public Image sections, but I'm not sure there's enough written to source accurately something like that. Again, thoughts?Jwtbarry (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletion request. I came here to read about who this guy is, because he's supporting Initiative 502, to license and regulate marijuana use. Seems to me that an elected official supporting decriminalisation of marijuana is inherently notable. Kremmen (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)