Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Peter


 * 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. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Jayjg (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Laura Peter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Major-party nominee for state assembly, but has never held office. Nothing previous to her nomination indicates notability. MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Completly fails WP:POLITICIAN. scope_creep (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ray  Talk 01:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:POLITICIAN is WP:TOOSOON. moreno oso (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP Peter is a prominent female Bay Area attorney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.161.42 (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)  — 69.170.161.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP Peter meets criteria #3: being notable -- she meets the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." (am new to commenting, but passionate about fairness) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Spencer (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)  — Alexandra Spencer (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  KEEP  Just did a bit of digging on MelanieN who nominated the page for deletion - she has a history of nominating pages of Republicans for deletion. Her nominiation should be stricken as biased." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Spencer (talk • contribs) 16:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note: although this is not a number counting exercise, only one Delete or Keep is allowed per poster. Additional remarks should be labelled as Comments (or similar). Peridon (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have known Ms. Peter for over 20 years and she would be a first class State Assembly member who would represent her district in a professional manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.251.96 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP Ms Peter is a major party nominee for CA state assembly in the 2010 election. This is factually accurate. Notability of her past previous to her nomination is a judgement call and should not be ground for deletion. Deleting a major party nominee prior to an election looks like censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.236.252 (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)  — 24.4.236.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please note (with all due respect) that your personal opinion is irrelevant here, as is the subject's potential for the job. If you wish to keep the article, please use the correct procedure and arguments. Peridon (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete A non-notable candidate - by Wikipedia's standards WP:POLITICIAN. I'm sure her party colleagues who are making their first (and possibly last) edits here see her as the bee's knees. Unfortunately, being a candidate does not indicate notability here. (Candidates for President of the USA or Russia would be - but they would have pre-existing notability to get to that candidature.) As to MelanieN, I've always found her a fair editor here from her start - and would point out that she is a member of the Rescue Squadron for saving articles. (I'm not...) More Republicans being deleted? I can't give statistics, but I see quite a lot of AfD stuff - and to me there seem to be more Republican than Democrat candidates appearing and going again. But the Democrats do go too. Unless either is notable, they go. Me? I'm definitely neutral, not being an American (and regarding the political parties where I live with equal distaste). I couldn't care a tinker's damn what party anyone is from. They are either notable or they aren't - and here, please remember that it's our ball and our rules. (And our field too...) I would point out, too, that this is not a vote by numbers like a political election. It's a discussion. Prove that the subject of the article has notability - by our standards - and save the article. Otherwise, don't try to filibuster or swamp us with numbers. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ROFL, well, that's a first! Accused of bias by an WP:SPA! 0;-D I can't imagine what kind of research Alexandra Spencer did to reach the conclusion that I "have a history of nominating pages of Republicans for deletion," because I very rarely nominate articles of any kind for deletion; I find the process very cumbersome. Looking back through my own records for the past two months or so, I find that I nominated five articles for deletion, only one of which was about a policitian - namely, this one. Earlier this year I recall nominating a candidate in a Republican primary in New York, and a minor Democratic candidate for governor in California. Notability is notability, and lack of notability is grounds for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Apologies for the double 'Keep'- am learning the ropes. Re evidence of bias - just in the last few days- 3 nominations: Laura Peter (SF Republican - a rarity in and of itself), Dave Ross (Republican in Wisconsin) & Dian Grueneich (appointed by Schwarzenegger). Wiki has an excellent reputation, and it would be a shame to delete a worthy article favoring the folks who control "the field" (per Peridon) over those who are new.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Spencer (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope that isn't typical of your research skills. The only one of those three that I nominated was Laura Peter, because she clearly fails Wikipedia standards as set out at WP:POLITICIAN (which you really need to read). Regarding Dave Ross, someone else nominated him, and I didn't even cast an actual !vote, though the thrust of my comments was to delete. Regarding Dian Grueneich, someone else nominated her, and I have been strongly arguing to KEEP her article - as well as adding references to the article to improve it. Next time please get your facts straight before you accuse another editor of bad faith. --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal intended, although not sure about your comments above directed to me (as well as being labeled a WP SPA. Geez, I admitted I was new.)  As for Dian - I stand corrected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Spencer (talk • contribs) 22:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment OK - prove to us that she has notability other than through being a candidate. I do change my mind. (Twice each during a couple of rather spectacular AfDs.) Candidates are usually subject to deletion, whatever party they are from. The reason, as I see it, is that once the election is past, they are either elected and thereby notable - or rejected and therefore forgotten. As to bias - you find any Democrats (or Whigs or Raving Loonies or People's Party of Mars that we've missed and you are welcome to bring them here. As to the folks who control the field, you are quite free to start a Politipedia - WikiMedia would very likely host it - if you don't like Wikipedia's criteria. Note we are not saying the subject of the article is not a worthy person (using 'worthy' in its dictionary sense). We are saying that the article doesn't show that there is notability by Wikipedia's rules. Believe me when I tell you that repeating things that are not relevant to the situation is a bit like standing up in court and telling the judge that you know the accused to be a kind person who has always helped aged cats cross the road (when he's accused of machine-gunning a flock of penguins at the zoo). Peridon (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS Please sign posts with ~ please - it stops the poor little bot that runs round signing for people from overheating. Peridon (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Per my initial post, * KEEP  All documented in the article.  BTW, being a candidate does not invalidate or knock out an article for wiki, as I read the rules. Alexandra Spencer (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP! For all the reasons above and so that the public can find more objective information about her.  If the article is deemed unworthy of keeping, delete it after the election.  For now, keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenmanyo (talk • contribs)  — Zenmanyo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, references cited mainly mention her in passing as a candidate. If she wins in November she'll be notable, especially as the opposing party have held the seat with a 5:1 majority for at least 14 years. Nanodance (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 *  KEEP  I agree that that this article should be kept. Laura is a successful ($82M judgment)lawyer


 * 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.