The result was delete/redirect. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable candidate. My rule of thumb is for a candidate to be notable, there must be at least one scandal in the news. Can find nothing except the fact that he got 0.3% of the vote. W Nowicki ( talk) 03:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Only half sarcastic: yes. The way the US elections work, if a candidate is considered a serious threat, attack ads appear (now funded by secret corporate groups) acusing them of something horrible. So no attacks implies the candidate was not really taken seriously. Of course every rule has exceptions, and perhaps historic elections (and in other countries) might be different. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete/redirect. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable candidate. My rule of thumb is for a candidate to be notable, there must be at least one scandal in the news. Can find nothing except the fact that he got 0.3% of the vote. W Nowicki ( talk) 03:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Only half sarcastic: yes. The way the US elections work, if a candidate is considered a serious threat, attack ads appear (now funded by secret corporate groups) acusing them of something horrible. So no attacks implies the candidate was not really taken seriously. Of course every rule has exceptions, and perhaps historic elections (and in other countries) might be different. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC) reply