Deletion of Edward M. Flynn

Comment: without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. (I'm also willing to reconsider if somebody improves the article ''before'' this discussion concludes.) Boston ''is'' a large and important enough city that we would typically deem its city councillors to pass  #2 — out of all Flynn's colleagues on Boston City Council, there's only ''one'' who ''doesn't'' currently have an article, and even that one is a recently-elected councillor who just doesn't have one ''yet''. However, that "inherent" notability does ''not'' mean that you're entitled to park an article on |primary and junk sourcing ''instead'' of real |reliable source coverage in the likes of the ''Boston Globe'' or WBZ, and it does ''not'' mean that you're entitled to write it like a campaign brochure instead of a proper encyclopedia article.In other words, he's a valid article topic in principle, but the content and sourcing shown in ''this'' version of an article about him is not cutting it. So if somebody can do ''better'', then bring it on, but it can't stand looking like ''this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:RS)