Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Klein (District Attorney)


 * 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 Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert Klein (District Attorney)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:POLITICIAN gives clear guidelines for notability, which this person does not appear to meet. Notability requires holding state-level office, while this person holds (or rather, will hold) a county-level office. An alternative proof of notability would be significant press coverage, but the article does not assert any such coverage. In short, fails to meet notability guidelines. Ashenai (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The article's creator,, has a suspiciously similar name, and another major contributor, has a name that is suspiciously similar to Kleinsauce2000. I suspect a PR job either by the prospective DA or one of his staff. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a not yet elected candidate for a relatively low level office. In addition, the article title is inherently misleading since he is not yet a district attorney. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the reasons mentioned above.  Article reads like a campaign leaflet. ABF99 (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 05:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 05:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Being a district attorney is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia by itself. It can get a person into Wikipedia if the article is well-sourced enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but it does not confer an entitlement to a Wikipedia article that rests on no sourcing beyond their own campaign website. In addition, this reads very like a campaign brochure rather than an encyclopedia article — and even politicians who do pass our "automatic in because state-level or federal-level office" criteria still don't get to keep that kind of article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.