Deletion of Albert Robles

Comment: 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 , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: fails . The sources shown above only deal with him in his professional capacity and do not bootstrap him into notability IMO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: as not meeting  and being  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:TNT)

Comment: Does no one engage in  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: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-robles-da-20160127-story.html LA times article January 2016 on County DA suing the guy, http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-robles-carson-oil-20140509-story.html May 2014 LA Times article on entirely different DA probe of the guy, http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-sn-carson-mayor-chargers-raiders-stadium-20160122-story.html January 2016 LA Times article on the guy in relation to stadium-building in LA, https://www.dailybreeze.com/2016/08/15/carson-mayor-albert-robles-defies-district-attorney-seeks-two-incompatible-offices-again/ August 2016 Daily Breeze coverage of the two-offices DA Probe issue again, https://www.dailybreeze.com/2016/10/10/carson-mayor-albert-robles-faces-more-state-campaign-finance-accusations/ October 2016 Daily Breeze coverage of state-level campaign finance problems, https://www.dailybreeze.com/2016/10/11/albert-robles-is-best-choice-for-mayor-in-carson-endorsement/ idiotic Daily Breeze endorsement which, no matter how bad for the people of Torrance Carson, is still a factor in the guy's notability, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-albert-robles-fines-campaign-20161219-story.html 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. Special:Contributions/192.160.216.52|192.160.216.52
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)