Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Spiegel


 * 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. Deor (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Karen Spiegel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced article and fails to meet WP:NPOL standards. – S. Rich (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete – by OP. – S. Rich (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I should have brought this to AfD when I deleted some copyvio, sorry. Fails our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Mayor of a city which has no regional significance. Fails WP:NPOL Cowlibob (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I could go either way on this. There is some "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" which might satisfy point 3 of WP:NPOL. After only a few minutes of searching I was able to find and add some of these to the article. I'm sure with more diligence, other sources could be found. Whether it meets the "significant coverage" verbiage (which I've always found to be an overly subjective standard) is questionable though. btw, "no regional significance"? I wouldn't be so dismissive of a city of ~158,000. Read the article if you're not familiar with Riverside County. --William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That was probably harsh. When I saw the article it was basically an one liner of she's the mayor of this city so maybe I was a tad dismissive. You've since added some more content which is helpful. I agree it can be quite subjective. Could you find anything from national newspapers? Cowlibob (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources do little more than confirm what she is, a local politician, and do not add to notability. And per the Press-Enterprise story, the mayor's position is simply an enhanced council member. I believe, without research, that her position with the Transportation Commission comes about simply because each city gets to provide a member. If she'd be making noteworthy accomplishments as mayor, councilmember, or TC member, we'd need to see it. But I don't think this article as WP:POTENTIAL. (I will add that the mayors for other large cities in Riverside County, California, i.e., Riverside, California, Moreno Valley, California, and Temecula, California do not have articles.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)17:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Corona, California - or Delete. As pointed out she is just a glorified council member, and while Corona is not small, it would be difficult to describe it as a "regionally significant city" in the context of Riverside County. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough to pass GNG with the general failure of city being important enough to cause mayor to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly in theory, Corona is a large enough city that its mayors could qualify for Wikipedia articles — cities with populations of 100K or more very commonly are deemed large enough for articles about their mayors. Caveat coming, however: the one legitimately reliable source in this article clarifies that the mayor of Corona is not directly elected, but rather the position is simply rotated annually among the city councillors. That's the real knockdown here, because it makes the mayoralty of Corona effectively a ceremonial role rather than one with any actual political authority in its own right. (That's exactly the criterion on which many mayors in England, frex, fail the wikinotability test even in some fairly large cities.) And the sourcing here is fit for the birds, relying almost entirely on primary sources that cannot confer notability. No prejudice against recreation if somebody could write a genuinely substantial and well-sourced article about her, but under the circumstances that's unlikely and this version is definitely a delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as per . Searched, did not find much, although there was this award, overall does not seem to meet the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2014 (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.