Deletion of Gayle McLaughlin

Comment: She does seem to meet the notability criteria for 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: Seems to meet the minimum threshold for 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: By the very nature of what a mayor is and does, the bulk of her coverage is always going to be predominantly local — so the localness or non-localness of the sources is not the controlling factor in and of itself. If she had been a city councillor and ''not'' a mayor, the presence or absence of more than just local sourceability would carry a lot more weight — but for ''mayors'' the bar to inclusion in  is ''markedly'' lower than the bar for councillor inclusion, so as long as there's a reasonable ''volume'' of sourcing it is ''not'' as critically important that the coverage encompass an unusually large ''geographic'' range.To be fair, AusLondoner is drawing from ''British'' standards for mayoral notability, where with a handful of exceptions the mayoralty of most places is a rotational "Buggins' turn" position where the most senior person on council who hasn't had their turn yet automatically gets to be "mayor" for a year, and thus has very little direct executive power and very little substantive coverage — but that's ''not'' the way it works in most ''North American'' cities, where the mayors are directly elected and have ''considerable'' power over the direction of city business. And that's the thing I think he's missing: the notability standard for mayors ''does'' hinge ''significantly'' on the question of whether that city's mayoralty is a directly elected position or a "thanks for coming out" ribbon.So for a directly elected executive mayor, a population of 100K certainly wouldn't entitle her to keep an ''unsourced'' stub — but it is ''absolutely'' large enough to get a mayor included in Wikipedia if the article ''is'' adequately sourced. 50K, 10K, even ''5K'' is enough if the article is genuinely substantive and well sourced — the population size test actually only comes into play if we're in a position where we have to figure out how much ''benefit of the doubt'' to extend to a ''poorly'' sourced article on the question of whether better sources are ''likely'' to be found or not. It's ''irrelevant'' if the article ''is'' already well-sourced and substantive, however — even the mayor of a village of just ''10'' people can get a Wikipedia article if they've been properly shown to clear GNG for it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:POLOUTCOMES)

Comment: As a preliminary matter, the deprodder was right that this article is not suitable for prod.  It's hardly a "false rationale" to believe that an article about someone who was twice elected to be mayor of a city over 100,000--especially in this case, where her election made Richmond the largest city in the country to elect a Green Party member as mayor--deserves the full review of an AfD rather than the summary procedure that roposed deletion reserves for deletions that are reasonably expected to be "uncontroversial".  On the merits of notability, the search string  yields hundreds of potential sources, including national coverage not only of the unusual circumstances of her election and re-election, but also of such policies as (a) her unusual proposal to use eminent domain to acquire defaulted mortgages from the lending banks (''New York Times'' https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/business/in-richmond-california-a-long-shot-against-blight.html?_r=0; ''The Nation'' https://www.thenation.com/article/meet-mayor-whos-using-eminent-domain-fight-foreclosure/; Associated Press, reprinted in multiple newspapers around the country https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1A1-fb19cfcc9c7b4bc0bda13a90d692e795.htmlhttps://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-35055869.htmlhttps://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-35053907.htmlhttp://www.deseretnews.com/article/765636587/Calif-city-looks-to-seize-loans-to-ease-mortgages.html?pg=all; ''USA Today'' http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/29/richmond-eminent-domain-foreclosures/2834299/); (b) her support for worker owned co-ops as a remedy for urban poverty (''Los Angeles Times'' http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/28/local/la-me-richmond-20111128); (c) her advocacy of a tax on soda and sugar (''New York Times'' http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/us/richmond-calif-savors-role-as-soda-tax-battleground.html); and her challenges to the city's dominant employer, Chevron (''In These Times'' https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3112589101.html; ''Los Angeles Times'' http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/14/opinion/la-oe-0814-juhasz-chevron-refinery-pollution-20120814; ''Moyers & Company'' http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/30/mayor-gayle-mclaughlin/).  I think notability is clear here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)