Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Norcross III


 * 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   keep. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 08:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

George Norcross III

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-Notable person, Small time politician and insurance/bank executive from New Jersey, Is not known outside of that state. Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, update, and improve. CEO who easily satisfies WP:BIO.page 2;  .  THF (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The political career too is significant. In NJ, and possibly elsewhere, the Chairman of a county party is a major political figure, in some counties, including this one, probably as important as a mayor. There shouldbe additional sources.   DGG (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep New Jersey has a population the size of a small country. Not being know outside of it, isn't really a reason for not including him. I think there's just enough major coverage of him to warrant inclusion. Though I'd like to see more.--Sloane (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well then why don't we include every county chairman for every Democratic and Republican party in the United States? If we did then Wikipedia would be jammed with so many articles it would be ridiculous. Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * TOO MANY is not an argument. If we were to decide them notable, we are NOT PAPER and can deal with as many articles as people can find information for. There is no binding to burst, and the interface will look just the same. DGG (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment His inclusion isn't argued on the basis of him being a county chairman but because of coverage he has received. Like these articles in the NYTimes:--Sloane (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. --Rpresser 19:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems fine now. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've removed "dropout" per RS and BLP but as a stub this seems reasonable to me. While it's young converting the footnotes to citations would help. -- Banj e  b oi   06:03, 10 March 2009 (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.