Deletion of Chris Arlman

Comment: I understand the desire of those to expand the time given to this AfD to see more opinions. I would like to see that too. That said it is clear that those who ask to keep this article are rooted in policy and existing sources that are now 23 references in the article. Those who said delete seem not even to have read . NPOL clearly states that local politicians will be kept if they meet the . Nobody here has even started explaining how Arlman, with so much national and regional coverage, does not meet the GNG. Important here is to understand that these regional newspapers are dailies that cover their regions, national, and international news. These are *not* local interest weeklies, twice or thrice weeklies with daily updating websites that also exist in the Netherlands
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:GNG)

Comment: I think the delete arguments have absolutely been addressed by the additions to the page during AfD. In addition to GNG arguments that this person has received the sort of coverage that POLOUTCOMES suggests to look for in deletion discussions about mayors, the page now clearly looks like it's about one of NPOL's "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". I think this was a successful 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: unless somebody can improve the article. Mayors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they existed — and that goes especially for mayors of small municipalities in the 10-20K population range. The notability test for mayors is not just the ability to say that he was a mayor, it is the ability to write and |reliably source some genuine ''substance'' about the ''significance'' of his mayoralty: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the town or city, and on and so forth. But there's no such content here at all: it just says he served as a mayor and then moves on without saying or sourcing ''anything'' that might establish how he could be seen as a ''notable'' mayor. And if there are "many secondary sources about him", none of them are actually ''in the article'' — so getting him over the bar is not just a question of ''saying'' that unspecified sources exist, it's a question of ''showing'' that enough sources exist to get him over : namely, by ''finding'' those sources and ''using'' them to ''expand the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: I just ''cannot'' see how he doesn’t meet . {{U|Gidonb}} has expanded the article with a lot of reliable sources. Passes criteria 2 of NPOL. Also per , mayors are generally kept, also subjects with non-local coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:POLOUTCOMES)

Comment: received the usual type of coverage for a mayor, but does not pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: JPL's verdict is part of him putting in one delete vote every minute. This is not helpful. No serious research can be done in such a short time span so his opinions are always about what is in the article. For example, he wanted to delete Germany's most decorated actress as "just not notable". The above opinion clearly conflicts with 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST)

Comment: fails , per Bearcat's excellent arguments. Special:Contributions/174.212.238.87|174.212.238.87
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: passes the  test so passes biographical notability if nothing else
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)