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/no consensus. I think there's a clear consensus to delete Anja Reinke, but no consensus for Gary Bric, which probably should not have been bundled into this AfD in the first place. Accordingly, I am going to close this AfD and recommend that the nom (if they still want to argue for deletion) starts a new discussion for Bric that clearly links to this one, and pings the participants to advise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Local politician fails WP:NPOL. Mayors of Burbank are elected by their city council colleagues, not the local electorate. KidAd • SPEAK 18:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because the mayor is similarly non-notable:
Keep Gary Bric, who is probably more notable as a restaurant owner (according to the references supplied) than as a municipal politician. Undecided about Anja Reinke Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just wrong. Per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, corporate presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable.. He is the owner of a roadside diner. Give me a break. KidAd • SPEAK 21:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I fail to see how the Burbank's system of choosing mayors is relevant. WP:NPOL doesn't distinguish between direct elections, indirect elections, appointments, games of chance, or armed coups. If the holders of the position are notable, then it doesn't matter how they got there. The more relevant section is WP:POLOUTCOMES which says "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD." I'm not sure if Burbank qualifies given that it is, in my view, a satellite of Los Angeles. pburka (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The selection of mayor can be important for a couple of reasons. First, an independently elected mayor must reach out to their entire constituency to gain election. This brings more notability and visibility to the position and second, a strong mayor usually has independent authority to enact or implement policies and set the direction for the jurisdiction. In both cases, this means it is more likely that the subject will get independent coverage and that the coverage provides sufficient information about the policies and projects they spearheaded while in office. --Enos733 (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for mayors is not just the size of the city per se — merely asserting that a city is "regionally significant" (outdated language that should actually be removed from POLOUTCOMES, because how we gauge mayoral notability has significantly evolved since that was written) is not in and of itself an exemption from the article actually having to pass WP:NPOL #2 on properly sourced evidence of the mayor's significance. The notability test for a mayor is not passed just by minimally verifying that he or she exists, or by the old "mayors are inherently notable if the city meets or exceeds 50K in population" test that we abandoned several years ago: it's passed by showing a substantial volume and depth of coverage demonstrating his or her political impact: specific things he or she did, specific projects he or she spearheaded, specific effects he or she had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. And while it's true that NPOL doesn't explicitly state a distinction between directly elected executive vs. rotational, council-selected or ceremonial mayors per se, it is profoundly unlikely (though I won't say completely impossible) that the required notability standard can ever actually be attained by a non-executive non-elected mayor, precisely because that type of mayor just chairs the meetings and doesn't control the agenda. There's just no automatic presumption of notability for mayors regardless of whether they were directly elected or appointed from within council, and neither of these articles is meeting the standard they would need to meet. And no, owning a local restaurant isn't a notability freebie either, in the absence of much broader coverage in that context than just a couple of community hyperlocals. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anja Reinke; the WP:NPOL test for Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage includes in footnote 8 A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists, and none of the criteria, including WP:GNG, appear to be supported for this article. Weak Keep for Gary Bric, because by these same standards, the 2014 LAEater coverage of him as a political figure and restaurant owner, the 2009 Burbank Leader/LA Times coverage of him becoming mayor, and this 2009 Q & A with leading questions about his role as mayor that add secondary context, as well as the 2018 coverage of the restaurant closure owned by "former Burbank council member and mayor Gary Bric" support some WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a small smattering of campaign coverage in the local media is not sufficient to get a mayor (or candidate for mayor) over WP:GNG all by itself — every candidate for mayor of everywhere can always show some of that, because covering local mayoral elections is a core part of local media's job, so the mayoral notability test requires a lot more than that: such as extralocal coverage demonstrating a much wider nationalized profile, and/or the ability to write and source genuinely substantial content about specific things he actually accomplished in the job. And by the same token, local restaurant owners don't automatically clear the bar just because a small smattering of local coverage exists either, for very similar reasons: they still require more than just a couple of hits of verification that they exist as local restaurateurs. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Both subjects fail WP:NPOL and Bric fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. The LA Eater review only contains two sentences that add to our understanding of Bric - that he served as mayor and that he owned the restaurant since 1993. This is far from significant coverage of the subject and I don't think the reviews would pass WP:NORG. --Enos733 (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2021 (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.