Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Robles
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
— [[User talk:192.160.216.52|talk]]), 18:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BEFORE (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)