Deletion of Agra (Mayoral Constituency)

Comment: I'm not an expert in Indian politics, so I can't speak to whether these mayors would pass  or not — its population is over a million, which would certainly seem like they should, but we've historically had problems actually finding adequate sourcing for mayors of many cities in India and mayors don't get an automatic "no sourcing required" inclusion freebie just because they exist. But what I did want to share is that this is part of a pattern of lists of mayors of places in Uttar Pradesh (see also Varanasi (Mayoral Constituency), Kanpur (Mayoral Constituency) and Lucknow (Mayoral Constituency)) that were all recently created by the same user under an incorrect and entirely nonsensical title format — places have mayors because they're ''cities'', not because there's any such thing as a "mayoral constituency". And when I've attempted to move them to the correct titles, "List of mayors of X", the creator has moved them ''back'' to the "mayoral constituency" forms again without explanation — and then when I escalated it to  discussions instead, two of them got moved to the correct titles and one's still pending, but even for the ones that did get moved the creator moved them back to the "mayoral constituency" forms ''again'', ''still'' without actually ''explaining'' the action anywhere. I've actually had to entirely ''move-protect'' them to get that to stop. And the Lucknow list, further, isn't even actually complete, and simply reduplicates a portion of another list we already have in another article — so I've listed it for AFD too. So I have no strong opinion either way about whether this is keepable or not, but if it is kept it has to be moved to List of mayors of Agra, and the creator is definitely being disruptive and unresponsive to feedback.As well, I'm fairly certain that the list is incomplete — again, I'm not an expert in Indian politics, but I strongly doubt that a city that's old enough to have been mentioned in the Mahabharata has ''only'' had mayors since ''2006''. The value in retaining lists of mayors, even if they don't have individual BLPs to link to, is in a ''complete'' list — a list of just the two or three most recent holders of an office that has had ''more'' than two or three holders is not better (actually it's arguably ''worse'') than having no list at all — to maintain a list like this, we should normally wait until we can find adequate sources to list ''all'' of the mayors, rather than just listing the two or three recent ones that some editor happens to remember off the top of their head
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:RM)

Comment: with no opposition to moving to a better name. I am reminded of our article Mayor of San Francisco because Ed Lee, mayor of that city in recent years, died unexpectedly two days ago. No one would consider deleting that article. The Wikimedia Foundation, after all, is headquartered in that world famous city, along with many major corporations. But Agra has a population almost twice that of San Francisco, is also a major tourist destination, and if the current article is correct, the Agra constituency has an order of magnitude more voters than San Francisco. If the article is now incomplete, then it should be improved rather than being expanded. As for the argument that winners of this post fail , I would believe that only if an editor fluent in the leading Languages of Uttar Pradesh, and the newspapers and magazines of Agra was to tell me so, after a diligent local search. This is precisely the type of article that allows us to include information about mayors of cities of 1.5 million residents in this case, when we do not ''yet'' have enough information for freestanding biographies of those mayors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)