Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Drobinski


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Rod Drobinski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable lawyer, unsuccesful (unelected) politicians. Fails WP:BIO. Passing coverage. "It has been widely speculated that Drobinski will seek election once again" sourced to 404 "Friends for Rod Drobinski" page and which doesn't seem to mention him at all. PS. Ping User:DGG who prodded it originally. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable unelected politician who fails WP:NPOL. Also fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for political office is not in and of itself grounds for a Wikipedia article — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides his candidacy, then he has to win the election to get a Wikipedia article because election per se — and campaign coverage itself does not get him over WP:GNG in lieu of failing WP:NPOL, because every candidate in any election could always show some degree of campaign coverage and thus it falls under WP:ROUTINE. But this makes and sources no credible claim that Drobinski had any preexisting notability that would have gotten him an article independent of his candidacy. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if he wins a future election and becomes an actual officeholder as a result, but nothing here entitles him to an article today. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete nonnotable as politician nor otherwise. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete failed political candidates are just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Object I added his background as a prominent Assistant State's Attorney. Gained significant notoriety for role as prosecutor prior to being a politician. . Illinoiswiki10 (talk) 20:432, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the source you've added . appears to quote him briefly in the context of one of his investigations. This stuff is routine coverage, and does not suffice to make him notable. If the piece had been about him, about why he is special/important/notable, then you'd have a better argument. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree with nominator.  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:22, 3 May 2017 (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.