Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Loftus

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Loftus[edit]

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

He fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. He was a long-serving mayor of Pittston, Pennsylvania, whose population peaked in 1920 at over 18K, but as of 2010 was less than 8K. His obituary shows nothing that would qualify him for an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails BIO and GNG. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Local politician with expected local coverage. MB 04:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of sources probably has to do with the fact that his last term ended long before the Internet, so we shouldn't delete just because we can't find anything on Google. However, I'm unconvinced that print sources from that time period exist, other than the local paper, given the town's population. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the peak population of 18K would not be large enough to confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass on a mayor, let alone its significantly smaller current population — but there's no evidence being shown of anywhere near enough reliable source coverage, or enough actual substance about his actual political accomplishments, to make him more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing here that establishes notability. I'd like to see the Time magazine article, which might convince me otherwise, but it only appears by mention. Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2017 (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.