Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles City Attorney Election, 2009

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles City Attorney Election, 2009

Subtle, yet blatant attempt by a Weiss staffer to get his name out there to voters ahead of the rest of the pack. In that sense, especially since it was obviously created by someone affiliated with Weiss, this violates WP:ADS. Actually, this article should be speedy deleted under CSD G11. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Poorly written, fails WP:ADS. Willydick (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Creator of this article added Jack Weiss' campaign web site as an external link to Los Angeles City Attorney, even though he is not the current City Attorney. IMHO, this is clear evidence that the creator is working on behalf of Weiss' campaign to promote his candidacy. FYI: I reverted that edit on the article. Also, I have no axe to grind against Weiss, nor am I a resident of the City of Los Angeles, so I can't even vote in the election, so this is not based on anything other than Wikipedia's policies. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain i am not sure whether this special election to a local office is notable--it is a significant office in a major city, as municipal offices go. As for the spam, I dealt with it by editing. Fortunately, there's a reliable NPOV reference. DGG (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Considering that no one is talking about that election here in the LA area yet (media, buzz around the street), I'd say it's not notable yet. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This an election taking place this year - as opposed to other elections for which we have articles that are years away (e.g. United States presidential election, 2012; United States presidential election, 2016). The election is going to happen and the article cites only candidates who have already declared, so there's no problem with WP:CRYSTAL. NPOV problems can be dealt with by editing. The only issue that's left is whether this election is itself notable, and given that it's an election (as just mentioned) this year, I lean slightly towards retention. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep LA is bigger than some countries, so though this would not be a significant level election in almost any other city, it is probably significant enough to be included in a not-paper encyclopedia. Spammy content removed. Sourcing available. Not a matter of "not notable yet." The import of the office makes it notable. Query, I thought Gmatsuda was not in LA? Anyway, anyone concerned with this being used as an election campaign tool should keep an I on it. Or give me a ding, and I'll have a look at it. Dloh cierekim 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am in the LA area, but do not live in the City of Los Angeles, so I am not eligible to vote in this election. Don't even know anything about any of the candidates, nor do I care. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's an election occuring this year for a key politcal office in a major city. There may not be much to say about it yet, but at some point this election will warrant an article, the only question seems to be when, and since there is already information, albeit scanty, from a reliable source, it seems like now is appropriate.Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2009 (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.