Deletion of Edgar Hager

Comment: we typically don't keep small town mayors per . Sources are scarce, and there's nothing showing he was any more or less notable than any other mayor of 20,000 people
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: A mayor is not automatically notable, but can be notable under . An article in a legitimate biographical directory and the abundant newspaper coverage may be enough to demonstrate notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There are https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/search/pages/results/?date1=1789&rows=20&searchType=basic&state=&date2=1963&proxtext=edgar+b+hager 72 hits of Edgard B Hager in the Chronicling America database. If 12 are false positives and 10 are ads, then we're talking about 50 news items. Of course not all press coverage was scanned. Along with the entry in the statewide history book, this bio meets  and can be withdrawn
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: So obviously notable.  there are probably even more sources if it were easier to query sources that aren't online
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: This AfD is listed already a while but all this time no case has been made for deletion. Already at listing time there were "two reliable sources" in the article as nominator said. This was enough for . Since then this number has grown to about 20. For sure there were a few deletion regulars who said their regular delete but their arguments distort and conflict with our policies, guidelines and precedents, and with the situation of the article. With 2 then, 20 now reliable sources in the article, this nomination is a waste of valuable community time from the onset and should never have happened. Wikipedia has a major problem of  and  so when we have fine historic articles, shedding light on eras in American history, we can cherish these as a community
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RECENTISM||WP:BLP)

Comment: without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better. Having a "large" entry in the Kentucky history book is certainly a potential ''start'' down the road toward making him more notable than most other smalltown mayors — but the link is just to a directory page for the book on Google Books, not to an actual ''copy'' of the book by which anybody can ''see'' how large his entry really is or isn't, so it isn't a magic bullet all by itself as the article's ''only'' notability-assisting source. And of the other five sources here, three are |primary sources that do not bolster notability at all, one is a self-published family genealogy, and the last is an incomplete citation to a local history book which is also impossible to verify whether its content about him is substantive or not — but since that source is being cited ''only'' to support the base fact that he was a mayor, and not for any substantive content ''about'' his mayoralty, I suspect that it isn't very substantive at all. A smalltown mayor's article needs to be much better referenced than this to actually get him over  #2
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:NPOL)