Talk:Scott Peters (politician)

This article was nominated for deletion on 2008 May 17. The result of the discussion was keep.

notability

I don't have time to expand this article right now, but Scott Peters is President of the San Diego City Council. San Diego has a strong mayor form of government, [1], meaning that the city council provides a check on the power of the mayor. San Diego is the second largest city in California and [List of United States cities by population|eighth largest city in the US] This year the San Diego City Council approved a budget of about 2.9 billion dollars [2]. If I do a google news search of scott peters san diego city council, I get 42 hits for the past month, and a regular google search brings up 418,000 hits. XinJeisan 19:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• In that case, I'm optimistic that somebody will take note of this article and expand it to include information that cements notability and also cites to verifiable reliable sources. Once that happens, it would be only appropriate to remove the notability template. Erechtheus 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Given that Peters is now a Congressman, shouldn't Scott_Peters just go right to his page and not to a disambiguation page? All of the Congressional representatives I've been looking up lately pretty much do this. Also, given that he's in Congress, the stuff about notability from 2008 looks weird - can that stuff be archived or removed as no longer relevant? I would do it but don't know what the standards are for making changes of this nature since I don't really edit much, so I'll leave it to someone else who knows/cares. gohlkus (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Amash amendment

An editor has twice now inserted an item into the article pointing out that Peters voted against the Amash amendment; the item has been twice reverted by two different people. We should discuss this here and not get into an edit war. Personally I think it is inappropriate to mention this one vote, which was just one out of of scores of votes he has cast, and which attracted no notice or coverage by Reliable Sources. Peters was one of 217 people who voted against the amendment. His vote was not determinative, nor was it in any way different from the votes of the other 216 Representatives who voted against it. There was nothing notable or newsworthy about it. Basically there is no reason to include this here, unless the editor is trying to make some kind of partisan or philosophical point about Peters. --MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

ACA vote

User:Cfredkin recently added a sentence about Peters' vote in May 2013 not to overturn the ACA. The user has been adding this or similar language to many articles about politicians. I reverted it here and at several other articles as a trivial vote, because the same issue has come before the House more than 40 times, and the individual politician's vote on this one was not determinative. I felt this kind of item was particularly inappropriate here, when it became the ONLY vote listed in Peters' article. On other articles, where there was already a listing of the person's positions or votes and this vote was placed in context, I have not reverted it. Cfredkin promptly reverted my reversion (although per WP:BRD they should have left my reversion in place and come to the talk page). Rather than getting into an edit war I am bringing the issue here for discussion. Is it appropriate for the "Tenure" section to list only one vote, and that on a proposed-to-death bill on which his vote did not make any difference? Cfredkin claims it has significance because it was mentioned by a "reliable source", but that "reliable source" was merely reporting a a potboiler press release from the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the only reference to a vote that demonstrates the Representative's stance on the ACA in the article. It was significant enough to be referenced by reliable secondary sources. The fact that the issue has been voted on multiple times also attests to its significance. However I obviously don't think it would be appropriate to record all 40+ votes in the article. The fact that it's the only content in the Tenure section is irrelevant. Something would have to be first, and it doesn't preclude other content from being added.CFredkin (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Filner endorsement, call to step down

Should the subject's endorsement from former Representative and Mayor, Bob Filner, which was covered by at least three sources (UT, San Diego Reader, OB Rag), be included? Should the subject's call for Filner to step down in 2013, also be included, if the first is included?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Filner's endorsement can be included; it's not unusual to list endorsements. Subsequent call for Filner to step down is not relevant here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sources

I understand the the reasoning for the removal of sources under the concept of WP:BOMBARD, however, there was no bombardment as all the sources were kept under one reference footnote per WP:CITEBUNDLE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There were three different sources for the same fact under one reference link, including a full sentence quotation from each. That was overkill - made a minor endorsement appear far more significant than it was. I chose to keep the best source - a well known regional Reliable Source, namely the Union Tribune - and to leave out the quotation as clutter. The addition of two lesser-known local papers (actually the OB Rag is little more than a blog) added nothing to the article - especially since the fact they were citing was about as unsurprising as "the sun rose this morning"; it did not need multiple sourcing. BTW I notice you chose to leave out the fact that although Filner endorsed Peters, Peters declined to endorse Filner. --MelanieN (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That can be included, but would be more relevant to Bob Filner than the subject of this article, however I don't think non-endorsements are significant, and thus would not support inclusion of the lack of endorsement on the Filner article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Trivial incident

IMO the incident where someone referred to DeMaio as "Mary" on Scott Peters' blog is too trivial to include here. It was recently deleted by User:Mcd51 and restored with additional references by User:RightCowLeftCoast. However, all of the references are from last May, when it happened - in other words the incident had no lasting significance. We've kept it in the article for six months but there has been no further mention of it in the news; clearly it was a one-day thing. I believe it should be removed per UNDUE and NOTNEWS. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

While it was a single event, it did receive significant coverage itself (nationwide), including the Washington Times, The Daily Caller, & Daily Kos, National Review, and Breitbart.com (August). It can be reduced in size from two sentences to one, if it helps balance if that helps UNDUE concerns. Perhaps it belongs in the DeMaio article instead, as it is whom the language was directed at?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It definitely does NOT belong in the DeMaio article. If it is about anybody, it is about Peters, on whose blog (but without whose input) the comment was made. Still, I don't believe a single mention by various media makes the incident important enough to include. (Most of the national media you name, with the exception of Kos, are right-wing sources which would be eager to give publicity to anything that makes a Democrat look bad; I give more credence to the reporting by local TV stations.) This wasn't even anything that Peters himself did, and it clearly had no lasting impact and did not affect the election. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that User:Stepshep has removed it. It looks to me like we now have three !votes to remove it - Mcd51, myself, and Stepshep - vs. one !vote to keep it - RightCowLeftCoast. So I would say the current consensus is to leave it out. --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, here's another !vote to leave it out, certainly until someone provides more argument addressing the UNDUE and lasting-impact issues. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)