The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Albert Robles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP, written more like a campaign brochure than a proper encyclopedia article, of a person notable primarily as a mayor of a suburb. As always, mayors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist, but must be reliably sourced as the subject of significant media coverage to become includable -- but the only sources present here at all are his own primary source biographies on the city's own website and the website of a utilities board he also served on, neither of which are independent of him for the purposes of establishing that he passes a notability criterion. This article appears to exist mainly to keep him from getting confused with Albert T. Robles, a different person of the same name who was previously convicted on criminal charges but was having some elements of this Albert Robles' biography incorrectly conflated with his, rather than because this Albert Robles's own notability has been properly demonstrated. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can properly source that he's notable enough -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be properly sourced. Bearcat ( talk) 17:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- Does no one engage in WP:BEFORE anymore? This guy is super-notable, mostly because of his legal and ethical problems, none of which are presently reflected in the article. However, the sources in the article are irrelevant. As is well-known, it's the sources in the world which determine notability. For Mr. Robles, we have stuff like: LA times article January 2016 on County DA suing the guy, May 2014 LA Times article on entirely different DA probe of the guy, January 2016 LA Times article on the guy in relation to stadium-building in LA, August 2016 Daily Breeze coverage of the two-offices DA Probe issue again, October 2016 Daily Breeze coverage of state-level campaign finance problems, idiotic Daily Breeze endorsement which, no matter how bad for the people of Torrance Carson, is still a factor in the guy's notability, December 2016 LA Times coverage of his campaign finance problems. So he passes GNG, clearly. Nom's argument, based on the sources in the article and their speculations about the purpose of the article are not reasons for deletion. Nom ought to withdraw this AfD. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 18:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Good work. For some reason, probably of hasty typos, I did not come across those articles. And there are more out there. I remove myself from this discussion. - The Gnome ( talk) 20:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Per above with the huge amount of sources, there is clear notability. -- DTM9025 ( talk) 02:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete as not meeting WP:NPOL and being WP:TNT eligible. A local politician of marginal notability is covered in local press; the probes seem to be rather minor (i.e. not of the kind "we must keep this article"). As the article currently stands it's a promotional BLP; no value to the project. No objection to recreation if can be done with proper sources, but let's not keep such sub-par articles if noone is willing to improve it. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment - This article currently reads like crap, please fix it with reliable sources to make it look worthy of keeping. Acnetj ( talk) 07:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. The sources shown above only deal with him in his professional capacity and do not bootstrap him into notability IMO. SportingFlyer talk 02:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't understand this comment at all. What capacity do you expect sources to deal with him in? Like he's written about in Major newspapers like the LA Times and you're saying they only write about him because of his job so it doesn't mean he's notable? What are you basing that theory on? 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 18:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. To me the LA times is a notable publication. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-albert-robles-fines-campaign-20161219-story.html Article by the FBI. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2007/january/cityhall_010807 Infamous is still famous. Looking at WP:POLITICIAN, I think he meets description (of notability) 3. I.e.: 'Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".' Ross-c ( talk) 21:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I think his coverage is well beyond that of most local mayors. But the article as written needs to be seriously edited to reflect that. ErieSwiftByrd ( talk) 05:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep. I spent some time doing some Serious cleanup, adding most of the above sources (the FBI one if for a different mayor) and a few others (sexual assault, NFL push, early career etc.). ErieSwiftByrd ( talk) 06:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Added even more sources (13 in total now), his connection to Albert T. Robles (who our Robles represented) and his campaign for Campaign for Los Angeles County District Attorney. ErieSwiftByrd ( talk) 06:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.