Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Harrison (Californian politician)

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. Dennis - 2¢ 16:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Harrison (Californian politician)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fremont has a population of 220,000, so it's mayor is notable. The cutoff seems to be somewhere between 50,000 & 1000,000. I usually prefer 1000,000, but many lower than that have been presumed notable. There should of course be no difficulty in getting sufficient references for the GNG as well. DGG (talk:DGG|talk ) 05:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Fremont has a population of aproximately 200,000. Its mayor is notable. I incline to nod as Keep. Wikicology (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs references, but I believe that this page passes notability guidelines since it's quite a big town. st170e^talk 20:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Where does it suggest a population threshold? Per WP:POLOUTCOMES this article would not pass as the article just states he is the mayor, with no other notability. If consensus has been to keep by community size shouldn't it be in the policy?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Bearcat/Whatever--114.81.255.41 (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unfinished draft which I have yet to submit for the necessary consensus review to have it adopted even as an essay, let alone an actual binding policy. So don't even try citing it as a priori proof of anything. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i added a navbox for this topic, where the cutoff is 100k. its not policy, but its consensus, and the city is in the top 20 in the state.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Note The Mayor of Fremont is not independently elected http://www.fremont.gov/493/About-City-Government. The form of government is a Council–manager government, meaning that the Council elects a Mayor and hires a City Manager to handle the day to day operation of the City. This means that the Mayor was not elected "Mayor" but elected as a City Councilmember and selected by his colleagues to serve as Mayor. Thus, the appropriate standard should be "Councilmember" not "Mayor" to evaluate the notability of the subject. Enos733 (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be true. References in the article clearly show that the mayor is elected independently by the voters at large, and that he was so elected in November 2012.[1] --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. It was unclear on the City's webpage and the fact that Fremont is a Council-Manager form of government. This still means that the City Manager handles the day-to-day operations of the City. Whether that makes a difference in how we evaluate mayors, that is another question (I still think it should). Enos733 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POLOUTCOMES states that "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville"" (emphasis mine). The article doesn't say any more than "he's the mayor" and there's nothing to indicate that he's particularly notable. Tiller54 (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independently elected mayor of a regionally prominent city; in addition he has some coverage from the Mercury-News, a Reliable Source of regional (not just local) reach. For the record, I do NOT agree that there is or should be a population standard for mayors to be notable. The standard is "cities of at least regional prominence". "Regional prominence" is relative and depends on the region, not the absolute population. Fremont is the fourth largest city in the San Francisco Bay area, and that amounts to regional prominence in my book. But a city of 200,000 might not amount to regional prominence in Orange County, California - much less in China or India. Meanwhile, a city of 50,000 in a rural area may be the most important city for a hundred miles in all directions. I also think a mayor needs to be independently elected to be notable - as opposed to a system where the title "mayor" is rotated around among the city council members. Just laying down my own markers in the "mayor" debate! --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Fremont, California#List of mayors. Although the city has an estimated population of 220k, the subject themselves doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG, as few if any non-primary reliable sources give the subject significant coverage for the subject to be considered independently notable outside of their position in office. Presently the argument for keep appears to center around WP:POLOUTCOMES, that as the subject is the chief executive of a size-able city, that the subject should be considered automatically notable. At the same time, the subject does not hold an elected office of a statewide or national level, and I believe POLOUTCOMES for mayors and city councilmembers makes a presumption that if a city is significant enough, that its chief executive and city councilmembers should be sufficiently notable enough to warrant significant coverage from non-primary sources and thus pass GNG. That being said, I do not see that yet being created for this subject. Therefore, if there was an embedded list of mayors of Fremont, California, I can easily see this article become a redirect to that list, however at this time I do not see sufficient reliable sources to indicate independent notability for a standalone article at this time. This may change, and when those sources are found this article can be recreated, but not until that time that those sources can be found.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion or exclusion of a mayor, for the record, is not solely a matter of the city's population — MelanieN isn't just expressing her own personal opinions, believe it or not, but is actually precisely correct on several points of mayoral notability or lack thereof. A city with a population well in excess of 100K will have its mayors fail to qualify if their mayoralty is rotated annually among city councillors, or is a ceremonial appointment that the council can confer on anyone of its own choosing, rather than a directly elected executive position — and a city with a population well below 50K can have its mayors pass NPOL if you can write and source a really good article, or if it's the capital of a country or a first-order division. (Just as an example, Whitehorse, Yukon has a population of only around 25K — but it's the capital of Yukon, and its 25K residents comprise two-thirds of the Yukon's entire population. So its level of "regional prominence" is extremely disproportionate to its small size, and thus consensus has accepted that its mayors are notable enough for Wikipedia articles.) Rather, what's actually much more definitive than the population of the city itself is how much substance and sourcing can or cannot actually be added. But I'm not seeing that here — the article as written is barely more than a blurb, and two of its five sources are invalid ones (#1 fails WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and #5 fails WP:USERG.) If a good article citing good sources could be written, I'd say to keep — but that's not what we've got here. Redirect to Fremont, California#List of mayors, without prejudice against recreation in the future if the sourcing and substance can be beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to Bearcat's comments, an easier test could be whether the City has a Council–manager government or a Mayor–council government. The primary difference is that in a council-manager form of government, the mayor does not have much/if any independent power to set policies or other administrative powers. It is not necessary for the Mayor to be selected by the Council to possess only a ceremonial role in the government. For the purposes of this AfD, I believe the standard should be WP:GNG rather than make the assumption that the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant significant coverage from non-primary sources based solely on their elected position. --Enos733 (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your comments display a profound ignorance on how fremonts mayor is chosen and your conclusions based on your lack of understanding should be disregarded. Fremonts mayor is directly elected. The election was covered extensively even as far away as India because one ignite candidates was vying to become the first indian American mayor of a large city. You should know before you comment. Burtonburtonburton (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burtonburtonburton , my comments on 18 October 2014 had nothing to do with whether the subject was directly elected by the public as Mayor. The subject was. My comment alluded to the powers that the Mayor of Fremont possess. One of the comments of Bearcat which I was responding to was his comment about a mayor being selected by the city council as a reason that a mayor (of a larger size) could "fail" to meet WP:POLITICIAN. I agree with Bearcat's assessment that there are reasons why a mayor of a larger city could fail. In this instance, the problem I have with this subject passing WP:POLITICIAN is different than the concerns Bearcat alludes to - and that is the form of government affects how large a role the mayor plays in the City and affects whether the subject should be automatically recognized as notable (for just being mayor).

WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests that mayors should be evaluated on their own merits, rather than any one particular criteria. The other recognized factor in WP:POLOUTCOMES is the term "regional prominence," tempered by "usually," and that the article should be more than a stub.

This AFD should be seen as a close call. On one hand, being a mayor of a city of regional prominence carries lots of weight. On the other hand, from what I understand, the City of Fremont does not provide the Mayor with lots of power or ability to influence the direction of the City. In addition the sources provided in the article (at the time of this post) are either primary sources or are not about the subject. However, if there was international coverage of the mayoral race, or if the article is expanded to include other significant coverage of the subject, then it would easily pass WP:GNG. As for a preferred outcome, at this point it is to Redirect to Fremont, California#List of mayors.. --Enos733 (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enos733, I disagree with your premise. Just because a city has a city manager form of government does not mean that the mayor is powerless. A city manager does not make independent decisions and certainly does not "influence the direction of the city"; he or she carries out the policies decided by the city council and mayor (who commonly chairs the city council). Under a council-city manager form of government the mayor does not wield as much independent power as under a strong-mayor format, but the mayor is still the most powerful single person in the city. As chair of the city council he/she sets the agenda and leads policy making decisions by that body, and he/she is usually the only person elected to represent the entire city instead of a portion of it. A citywide-elected mayor is comparable in importance under either form of government. I agree that a ceremonial mayor who is chosen from the city council is much less notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN - I think it depends on the city, but in most cases I am aware of, the city manager in a council-manager form of government plays a more prominent role in setting the agenda than the mayor (often because the city manager does the day to day operation of the organization). While the mayor can add items to the agenda, and has control over how a meeting is run, these powers are tempered by the powers of the councilmembers (as the chair of an organization only has those powers granted by the council). In this case, the Mayor of Fremont is a part time position - and from what I can tell, is more symbolic than real. When I look at powers of mayors, I look to veto power, ability to appoint/fire department heads and other staff, and the ability to create independent task forces or other actions that do not require the ascent of the council. --Enos733 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources appear to give him significant independent coverage. At least one doesn't even mention him. Unless being mayor of Fremont grants automatic notability, I don't see any reason why this article should be kept. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable mayor of a big city sufficiently notable for an article. Burtonburtonburton (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think we have ever in the last 5 or 6 years deleted anarticle on a mayor of a city of this zsize where the material could be verified, unless the article was hopelessly promotional; the present content is about as straightforward as it comes, not a political advertisement such as is sometimes seen. I am unable to figure out hte basis for objecting to this particular one. There's always potential for expansion. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across this new article, finding it fails any of the above mentioned political policies. Being a new editor with one-year active time I am not familiar with deeply buried talk archives. If community consensus has been reached it should be reflected in some WP policy/essay. Lacking any other form of guidance my decision to nominate AfDs are based on what I can see.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but barely. A quick search returns the blatantly political, the peripheral, the outright unrelated, and the occasional news story that quotes him in reference to what Fremont has done without anything specific and neutral as regards what he has accomplished. Still, if this article can be improved to demonstrate an impact by the man as mayor, I tend to lean toward giving it the opportunity. (Disclosure: I happened upon this in the midst of an unrelated process, so take my opinion with whatever grains are appropriate xD) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblio worm 02:22, 24 October 2014 (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.