Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Friedman


 * 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. v/r - TP 02:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Laura Friedman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nothing notable. See WP:NOTABLE I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep (Changing to Delete, see below.) She is the mayor of a city of almost 200,000 people. Being mayor of a city of that size has been argued as adequate for a "keep" in many recent deletion discussions. (I have actually argued against that position, but consensus has been against me; see, for example, Articles for deletion/Dave Kaptain.). I have cleaned up the article and improved the references. I am saying "weak" keep because she is a city councilperson who was chosen as mayor by her city council colleagues, not elected as mayor by the public. In fact "mayor of Glendale" looks more like an honorary title rather than the head of the city government; see for example the city's table of organization which does not even mention a mayor! Also because the news citations I found were not about HER, they were mostly references to a mayor doing what mayors do. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:POLITICIAN "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." IMO, Glendale is a city of at least regional importance.--TM 00:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But is she actually the "mayor" in the usual sense? The "mayor" of Glendale is chosen from among the members of the city council and it sounds kind of honorary - in fact it appears to be rotated among the city council members on an annual basis. According to the city website, "Each year Council selects one member to serve as mayor. The Mayor presides at Council meetings and has ceremonial responsibilities, in addition to his or her other Council duties." I'm sorry, I'm changing my !vote to delete. This person is simply a glorified city council member, so the relevant criterion is WP:BIO which she does not meet. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:POLITICIAN. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient coverage to support an article and no compelling reason to grant automatic notability to "honorary" mayors of this kind.  Eluchil404 (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meeting WP:POLITICIAN, "Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Despite the fact that this person was nominated for mayor, the topic nevertheless conforms to WP:POLITICIAN. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Since she was elected mayor of a city of over 190,000 people by the city council, she is clearly notable and the article must be kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would remind both of you that the guideline does not say "mayors of cities of at least regional importance are automatically notable", although that seems to be your argument. The guideline says "mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion," i.e., the criterion of significant independent coverage. They still do have to meet the criterion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep They quote and cover her just fine.  A mayor of a city that large is notable, that how it was in the last dozen or so AFDs like this I've seen.   D r e a m Focus  01:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep articles on mayors of notable cities, which is the kind of information one expects from almanacs, encyclopedias, etc. At worst, it would redirect to a list of mayors of her city.  --143.105.13.115 (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see that there is indeed coverage of this individual, and there is the weight of past precedent to consider. The manner of her election as Mayor is interesting, but doesn't ultimately diminish the fact that she is indeed mayor of a city large enough for the mayor to matter, at least as far as our criteria are concerned. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You see coverage? I see a single apparently independent reference, by a news outlet with the city name in the title and whose major BLP point in the article appears to be that the subject is a woman. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2011 (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.