Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Saffo
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
— User:Bearcat, 17:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:NPOL||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)