Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Schwartz (public figure): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:18, 17 December 2016

Mitchell Schwartz (public figure)

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

The subject of this article is not notable. Running for office by itself does not qualify for notability. The references do not indicate significant third-party notability except related to the election, and a search for references does not find any more. On the contrary, this article says, "if you vote in Los Angeles elections, you have almost certainly never heard of" Schwartz.http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2016/01/democratic_operative_says.php He is not even that notable in this election, as this article describes "long shot Schwartz" by saying he "has as much chance of being your next mayor as I do of winning a Pulitzer Prize for Poetry."http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/more-election-fundraising-fun/article_dddc5746-925f-11e6-b755-9b25e6982ad6.html

This WP article reads like a campaign piece, stating Schwartz policies as fact and giving Schwartz' criticism of his main opponent as if it were fact. While these WP:NPOV problems could be fixed, it is not worth doing so given the lack of notability. The creator of this article, who also provided most of the edits and most of the content, worked in the Mitchell Schwartz for Mayor campaign and was responsible for the "grassroots social media outreach campaign" that appears to include creation of this page. This creates serious concerns about WP:COI if not WP:AUTO.

COI Notice: I am a Los Angeles political activist. Schwartz' main opponent is Garcetti. I have met Garcetti many times. There has been a past election in which I have supported Garcetti. There has been a past election in which I have opposed Garcetti. I have not decided who I will support in this election. While I was typing this message for the talk page, I got a call from Garcetti's office asking about the procedure for getting an endorsement from an organization I lead. I have not been in touch yet with the Schwartz campaign. RichardMathews (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Him being the California in charge of President Obama's presidential campaign should be taken into consideration. I think it fulfills WP:GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Outside of press releases, the media does not seem to have found it noteworthy that Schwartz had the Obama campaign job. Before he ran for office, I can find just two independent references about what he did in that job[1][2]. If he truly is notable for this (and I don't think so), the bulk of the article should be about what he did in that job, provided any such material can be found without doing independent research. RichardMathews (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a state director of a US presidential campaign is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being the director of the largest state campaign is probably notable. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being the director of the largest state campaign is probably not notable.--2600:8805:A001:C900:38D9:8760:3AF7:F734 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Schwartz' role in the Obama campaign and his connections and networking make him the only candidate in this race with any remote chance of winning it, even if it's a slim one. And even if/when Garcetti wins reelection, it'll be worth knowing what kind of opposition he ran against. Frankly I'm surprised this is even up for debate here. We're talking about one of the largest cities in the world and an ambitious, upwardly mobile incumbent. 23.240.213.65 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What makes you notable is recognition from third parties (WP:NRV), not a job you hold or a campaign you are in (WP:POLITICIAN). If being a candidate cannot by itself make you notable, how can being an employee of a candidate do so? The notability rules explicitly make the current campaign for mayor not a factor. If it were a factor, the facts are that his opponent has an order of magnitude more money and that news media have been clear in saying Schwartz is an unknown and a long shot. For the Obama campaign, he was director of the campaign in the largest state, not the director of the largest campaign of any state. The big campaigns are in the medium-sized swing states (as measured by Obama's 2007/2008 ad spending, the California campaign was the 15th largest[3] with the PA campaign being seven times larger). The fact that there was just one media interview with Schwartz while he had that job shows that it was not notable. I am still convinced that this should be deleted and will be until someone shows there is "objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources." RichardMathews (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By your logic, only Eric Garcetti would meet your notability requirements. He'll get a significant share of the vote. He'll get endorsements once local politicians are done reeling from the national election. But he's absolutely notable now, too, because he's worked within the party and has connections. Honestly, Wikipedia is dumb. You'll create 50+ pages of Game of Thrones bullshit but when the second largest city in America has a mayoral election, you bring in the demolition crew. 76.91.51.209 (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RichardMathews. Just because he was campaign director in the biggest state, does not mean he made a bigger impact on the election compared to other state campaign directors. The Democratic candidate has usually won California in recent elections. Obama's campaign spent more in New Hampshire and it's way "smaller" (population less than a million). A campaign director there would be closer to being notable. Anyways, the current sources are weak. Emily Goldstein (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 *'''Comment''' What makes you notable is recognition from third parties (WP:NRV), not a job you hold or a campaign you are in (WP:POLITICIAN). If being a candidate cannot by itself make you notable, how can being an employee of a candidate do so? The notability rules explicitly make the current campaign for mayor not a factor. If it were a factor, the facts are that his opponent has an order of magnitude more money and that news media have been clear in saying Schwartz is an unknown and a long shot. For the Obama campaign, he was director of the campaign in the largest state, not the director of the largest campaign of any state. The big campaigns are in the medium-sized swing states (as measured by Obama's 2007/2008 ad spending, the California campaign was the 15th largest[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/ad.spending/] with the PA campaign being seven times larger). The fact that there was just one media interview with Schwartz while he had that job shows that it was not notable. I am still convinced that this should be deleted and will be until someone shows there is "objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources." [[User:RichardMathews|RichardMathews]] ([[User talk:RichardMathews|talk]]) 19:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' By your logic, only Eric Garcetti would meet your notability requirements. He'll get a significant share of the vote. He'll get endorsements once local politicians are done reeling from the national election. But he's absolutely notable now, too, because he's worked within the party and has connections. Honestly, Wikipedia is dumb. You'll create 50+ pages of Game of Thrones bullshit but when the second largest city in America has a mayoral election, you bring in the demolition crew. [[Special:Contributions/76.91.51.209|76.91.51.209]] ([[User talk:76.91.51.209|talk]]) 04:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per RichardMathews. Just because he was campaign director in the biggest state, does not mean he made a bigger impact on the election compared to other state campaign directors. The Democratic candidate has usually won California in recent elections. Obama's campaign spent more in New Hampshire and it's way "smaller" (population less than a million). A campaign director there would be closer to being notable. Anyways, the current sources are weak. [[User:Emily Goldstein|Emily Goldstein]] ([[User talk:Emily Goldstein|talk]]) 12:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)