 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nichita became mayor of the city in 2003. As mayor, he presumably affects the history of the city to some extent, and therefore should be included in the city's timeline. -- M2545 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is not relevant, in this context. When we talk about historical events we should stay out of current affairs and politics, and focus more on notable aspects of the city (many of them not yet covered by this article). Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC))
- Why should the city timeline "stay out of current affairs and politics"? Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I already explained this, please, see WP:N, WP:DUE. As a nice example with this kind of topics, I would also consider this article. Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC))
- More explanation would be appreciated. By what criteria do you judge "notable aspects of the city"? Why is the current mayor not notable or relevant to the city? What exactly makes this timeline "nice" as a city timeline? Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, the real question is why the current mayor, in your opinion, would be notable or relevant in this context!?? Only because he is the current mayor of the city!!? Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC))
- He seems worthy of inclusion because 1. there is an English-language Wikipedia article about him (created in 2005), 2. there is a Romanian-language article about him, 3. the main article for Iași mentions him in the "Government" section of the infobox at top righthand side of page, 4. He has been mayor since 2003 (i.e. 12 years). These are the 4 main criteria I used when I first included him in the city timeline. What am I missing? How is he not notable or relevant to the city's history? -- M2545 (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- :-) There are (were) hundreds (or thousands) of people (in, or from Iasi) more notable than this guy (in the arts, literature, science, education, etc. - Iasi is the oldest university centre and one of the most important cultural cities in Romania). Perhaps, you probably thought about this person being "notable" when you read about this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3063826/Romanian-mayor-suspected-using-police-spy-rivals.html Anyhow, it would not be a bad idea to re-evaluate your criterias of notability. Thanks, (Rgvis (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC))