Deletion of John Mutton

Comment: The http://moderngov.coventry.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=172 subject's page on the Coventry Council website states that he has been a councillor since 1984, Leader of the Council from 2003 to 2004 and 2010 to 2013, leader of the opposition from 2004 to 2010 and Lord Mayor in 1997/8 - while the source is obviously primary, I would regard it as reliable (for verifiability) for these council career details. While none of this meets any of the automatic criteria of , the criteria are supposed to reflect whether topics meeting them could be expected to meet {{ after a more in-depth search for sources than an AfD period typically allows. Bearing this in mind, I find the idea that a councillor recently elected in Birmingham (population 1.1 million, 120 councillors) is automatically notable but one of 30 years' standing in Coventry (population 330,000, 54 councillors) with exactly the same formal powers must be presumed non-notable unless fully proved to meet  somewhat odd but acceptable in that lines have to be drawn somewhere. But assuming that being leader of an English council (with powers equivalent to those of an executive mayor, if somewhat less security of tenure) of a city the size of Coventry is not at least indicative of notability strikes me as perverse. And
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:GNG)

Comment: specifically to {{user|Bearcat}} who has created somewhat of a strawman by focusing on the "Lord Mayor" as councillor, and ignoring the fact that he was leader of the Labour Party group within the council.  Because Coventry is an urban area, it has tended to favour Labour, so being far from being "Lord Mayor" on a rotational basis, he was "Leader of the Majority Party", and therefore the most important councillor politically, for a significant period and this does have something going for it that is conveniently ignored by the nomination.  In terms of , the result is marginal, and may depend on sourcing to news articles; the result will be far closer than the open-and-shut case presented erroneously by {{user|Bearcat}}.  The presentation of such an argument doesn't really inspire confidence
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: Plenty of mentions in passing, but insufficient in-depth coverage to pass . Claims that being local party leader confers automatic notability don't seem to be borne out by . Instead it states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" will be notable - ''if'' for example (per the note) they have "been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". The in-depth coverage isn't there, and padding the article with multiple references to passing mentions, and with trivia, can't get around this lack of depth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: Irrespective of being a politician, it is hard to see how he doesn't simply satisfy 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: Fails /POL and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NPOL||WP:V)

Comment: I did a search on HighBeam and I was surprised at the number of newspaper articles on him. There are over 1400 articles alone in the Coventry Telegraph over the years.  I added 10 sources to demonstrate both  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPOL)