Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George B. Schwartzman

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George B. Schwartzman

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

No claim for notability. Being a candidate in an election is insufficient for WP:GNG, as described by WP:POLITICIAN. What's more, the election he ran in was a free-for-all, with 135 certified candidates. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2003 California Recall. This is the usual outcome for losing candidates for a state/provencial-wide executive race per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Enos733 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a candidate in a free-for-all election does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With over 100 similarly situated failed candidates in that election, I can't even support the redirect. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:57, 14 March 2014 (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.