"::::And yet again. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines do not offer the leader of a city council an automatic right to keep a Wikipedia article on the basis of a single source which merely namechecks their existence — no matter what role a city councillor holds (plain old councillor, leader of the council, one year in the ceremonial rotation of mayors, head of a council committee, whatever), the only criterion in WP:NPOL that any city councillor can ever satisfy just because of their city council position alone is ""major local political figures who have received significant press coverage"" (i.e. who have passed WP:GNG as individuals in their own right). So if you cannot explicitly demonstrate that the significant press coverage is there — it cannot simply be assumed to exist, but must actually be shown — then they do not get a Wikipedia article regardless of what role they held on the city council. This is not a ""lie""; it's a completely correct and accurate and true assessment of what Wikipedia's inclusion rules for politicians say about city councillors.  
 ::::But you persisted, and still persist now, in ignoring the ""Wikipedia's inclusion rules for politicians"" part of my comments, and putting words in my mouth which I didn't say. You're claiming that I cast personal aspersions on him as an individual — but I didn't. You're claiming that I'm failing to understand that ""a leader is more important than a regular councillor"" — but that distinction does not make a difference to Wikipedia's inclusion rules, which whether you like the fact or not do not grant the leader of a city council any greater entitlement to have a Wikipedia article than any other city councillor gets. Any city councillor, leader or not, has to pass GNG to qualify for an article on here. And at no point in the entire discussion did I say even one word about anything beyond the question of Wikipedia's inclusion rules.  
 ::::You're entirely within your right to believe that our inclusion criteria for city councillors should be different than they are, and to pursue a consensus discussion to try to get them changed to your liking. But you're not entitled to call someone a liar for accurately summarizing what the current consensus is for the inclusion or exclusion of city councillors. 
 ::::I said all along that the article could be kept if enough sourcing were added to get him past GNG — but instead of adding sourcing, you simply dismissed the incontrovertibly true fact that NPOL does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on city councillors as ""lies"", and attacked me instead of the real problem (the quality of sourcing). The discussion's now been closed ""no consensus"", but the reason that happened is because another editor ponied up with some actual sourcing and content improvements. You were the only person to vote keep before that improvement happened, and your rationale was a personal attack on me in which you failed to engage the fact that the article didn't satisfy any of Wikipedia's inclusion rules in its original form. It got kept because the article got improved, not because anybody (least of all me) was ""lying"" about anything. 
 ::::And as for this stuff about ""my pet admin"", I don't know where you're pulling that assumption from either — I don't recall that I've ever interacted with Dangerous Panda before in my entire Wikipedia career, so it's not possible for them to be my ""pet"" anything.    

 "