Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Lopez

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. Joyous! | Talk 02:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Lopez

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

The article does not demonstrate that Lopez meets notability requirements. The coverage is very heavily from an advocacy organization he was a part of and from articles he wrote. There is a lack of indepth, reliable 3rd party sources that we would need to demonstrate notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Newsmax, C-SPAN, Daily Caller are among the sources cited, not closely affiliated with the subject and among a larger balance of sources that present an independent voice on the subject. The marriage equality campaign was substantive beyond mere advocacy and included a SOCTUS Amicus Brief (signed by the subject). My Google search immediately yielded hits, including news items on the Our America Initiative tour with Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as well as Republicans for Johnson/Weld, both recent events. Subject is on a list of inluential Republicans that include Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. I'd add: search "Ed Lopez Republican" or a listed name variation. It's a common name (and could be confused with another libertarian who has his own Wikipedia article).--1975tampabayray (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I cleaned up his article quite a bit, to try to sort out what content came from secondary sources. There were a number of unnecessary uses of articles that he wrote that were used as sources, which just confused things. So, now there are fewer sources, but for the most part are secondary sources. The exceptions are a bio that is used in a number of places - and articles he's written, that mostly seem to be op-eds. I'm not even sure if that info should be in the article, though. I agree with much of what 1975tampabayray has to say, but this may be a WP:TOSOON scenario.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2016 (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.