Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Lankey
The amount of ''time'' that an article has existed does not constitute evidence of a consensus to keep — since it's always possible for anybody to create an article about ''anything'', but the determination of a deletion or retention consensus requires somebody to ''notice'' whether it's complying with our rules or not, the length of time it takes for the latter thing to happen is entirely irrelevant to whether the article is keepable or not. And the 100K test is not a permanent notability criterion in and of itself — over 100K, mayors are ''initially'' granted a ''temporary'' presumption of notability ''pending'' the addition of better sources, but they don't get a permanent inclusion freebie just because the city's population has passed that arbitrary mark: they ''can'' still be deleted if the sourcing and substance ''remains'' inadequate two or three years after their election.Which is the case here: all this does is state that he exists and then briefly delve into his past résumé, and it's referenced entirely to a mix of |primary sources and |routine local coverage of the mayoral election itself — there's no ''substance'' and no ''sourcing'' being shown here at all about ''anything'' he did ''in'' the mayor's chair: it does name one goal he articulated while he was still just the mayor-elect, but contains ''no'' content to clarify whether he actually ''succeeded'' in ''achieving'' that goal or not once he was the actual mayor.To be kept on a ''permanent'' basis, a mayor has to be shown as the subject of enough |reliable source coverage about his mayoralty to clear  #2: mayors of cities over 100K can still be deleted if they ''aren't'' properly shown to have that, and mayors of cities ''under'' 100K can be kept if they ''are''. It's the quality of ''sourcing'' that constitutes the difference between keep and delete for a mayor — the only thing the size of the city controls is whether the ''initial'' creation of the article gets a ''temporary'' "grace period" to allow for ''improvement'' or not. It does ''not'' confer any permanent ''exemption'' from having to be better-sourced and better-substanced than this three ''years'' later
— User:Bearcat, 17:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:ROUTINE||WP:RS||WP:NPOL (Wikipedia:No original research)