Deletion of Bill Saffo

Comment: Wilmington, North Carolina is a large enough jurisdiction where an independently elected mayor is a public figure in its own right, and can no longer be a "low-profile individual." A Google news search shows about 1,090 hits for "'Bill Saffo' Wilmington." Using a couple of the top hits, I updated the article to include his electoral victories and included a claim that the subject is now the longest serving mayor of Wilmington and his previous service on the Council. Primary sources, including government records, should not be discounted, as primary sources can be used to develop an article (see rimary: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: to Wilmington, North Carolina#Mayors. I'm willing to reconsider this if the article sees improvement before closure, but the inclusion test for a mayor has nothing to do with the city's population — it's a factor of whether or not the mayor can be demonstrated as the ''subject'' of enough |reliable source coverage ''about'' his mayoralty to clear  #2. Mayors of large cities can still be deleted if they aren't, and mayors of small towns can be kept if they are. But this contains no real evidence of notability at all: there's no real substance here besides a fairly boilerplate "he exists, here's his career background prior to becoming mayor, the end", and two of the three footnotes are |primary sources that cannot support notability at all, while the third glancingly namechecks his existence in an article that isn't ''about'' him. And for an article that's already existed for almost a decade, it's not a good sign if this is all anybody could be arsed to do in that entire time. And it's not enough to just ''say'' that better sources exist — one has to ''show'' the ''evidence'' of that, because (a) anybody could simply ''say'' that better sources exist about ''anything'', and (b) a lot of Wikipedia contributors have ''extremely'' wrong-headed ideas about what constitutes a ''good'' source for the purposes of demonstrating notability, frequently trying to stack it onto namechecks of the person's existence in coverage of other things and/or content in which the topic was the bylined ''author'' of the piece rather than its subject. So we don't keep an article just because somebody ''says'' that better sources are out there: we keep it if they ''show'' the evidence so that we can properly ''evaluate'' whether those other sources are good enough or not
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NPOL||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES)

Comment: City is big enough to keep the mayor. , I have added some material to satisfy User:Bearcat's valid point that article needs sourced expansion.  But the fact that he has been a popular and successful Mayor means that there is far more sourcing on a range of issues than I have time to wade through.   So I will leave this topic, with the hope that someone has the time to make further improvements
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)