Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Lopez (2nd nomination)

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Lopez

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unsuccessful state congressional candidate. Other claim to fame is being Vice-Chairman of a libertarian group within the Republican Party, which doesn't seem enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN either. Lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Leonstojka (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only two sources that deal at length with him are articles in the Providence Phoenix, an alternative weekly newspaper. There is also a bio, but that's from the North American Foundation for the University of Durham, of which he is an alumnus. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "'Notability' is not synonymous with 'fame'. Subject has contributed to discourse on the US presidential election process, advocacy for the 'national popular vote' relative to the electoral college: covered on CSPAN and PBS - both US national news sources. Not a "congressional candidate" but a candidate for state house, regardless: elected to the Greenwich, Connecticut legislature, which seems a notable body, based on article. Online search shows: continues to work nationally with at least three organizations: american security fund, hispanic leadership fund, and american unity political action commmittee. There is a bio on the hispanic leadership site. The 'delete' would be premature, article needs new citations to show career progression.--Grant18650602 (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. He is active in various political organizations, but I don't believe that matters, otherwise every political junkie and party activist in the United States would meet the threshold. You note he was elected to the legislature of Greenwich, Connecticut: I do not agree this establishes notability. Per WP:NPOL, he has not held a state-wide office and he is not a major local figure who has received significant press coverage. That leaves WP:GNG, and there is not enough discussion of him in reliable, secondary sources to qualify on this metric either. Leonstojka (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Subject doesn't fit the description of 'political junkie': works on notable national issues, visibly participates in these, covered by national media. On the municipal legislature: he was an elected official; subject's overall participation in public service is hued by these roles. Career progression seems important per WP:NPOL: he meets a general notability in the political space, verifiable bio on one of the three national organizations he works with since last article update, that I could find, and was an active participant in the presidential election discourse in 2016 with relevance (the libertarian party played a substantive role in 2016 and subject led a national republican effort across parties). This article would likely be recreated: the ebb and flow of politics and missing updates to article are not a robust basis to delete if subject continues to develop a substantive career. Grant18650602 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lopez Reyes continues to write and publish on music subjects, podcasting; an online search shows he’s active politically but also in writing and podcasting on the music, entertainment side. Agreed small updates could improve article.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The music writing and podcasting are very unlikely to make him notable though, unless you could demonstrate the writing is impactful enough to meet WP:JOURNALIST, or his podcasting work has generated significant commentary in secondary sources. If the evidence exists, a major edit should be conducted immediately. Leonstojka (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reyes is still active nationally, Libertarians for National Popular Vote features him on their board with Gary Johnson and Lincoln Chafee and it seems the campaign to shift the election process to a popular vote is ongoing. His bio is available in more than one place. Searching his name as "Ed Lopez" vs "Ed Lopez-Reyes" will make a difference and the name variation is discussed in the article. Some of the information discussed in the comments above is in the article under the Notes section, but that would all fit fine in the main body. This article just needs some revision and updates, I also think it will be recreated anyway if deleted.--1975tampabayray (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low-level politico and failed candidate. The amount of name-dropping in the article, particularly on the Young Conservatives for Freedom to Marry (a sub-group of Freedom to Marry), is a clear effort to mask a lack of notability. There are also a lot of weasel words like "participated," meant to further mask this. This individual and their blogging do not meet the criteria to have a stand alone article.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The editors and contributors to the article seem to be acting in good faith, not in "name dropping" or leveraging "weasel" vocabulary.--Grant18650602 (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing notability for an encylopedic entry. Following comments by Mpen320. His article reads like a promotion for a candidate. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. But an online search doesn't show he is a candidate for an office at the moment; it shows after losing one campaign he continued to serve in a municipal elective office but also continued to take on national political roles. I'm not seeing the promotion of a candidacy.--Grant18650602 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - party leaders and political candidates are not automatically notable, and we have deleted articles about failed candidates of every political ideology. Also, this lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't see anything unusual or unique about him. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should be acknowledged that a couple of the user accounts supporting retention of the article appear to be single-purpose accounts that have recently come back from long periods of inactivity just to take part in this discussion and may have a conflict of interest. Leonstojka (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should comment, on the comment regarding editors 'in support'. Speaking for myself only: ater taking a deeper interest in SCOTUS Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 and then the 2016 election I found some(?) of the editing contentious, politically biased, and more focused on deletions than improving articles. So I don't edit as much, but it's not for lack (or conflict) of interest. It seems the editorial culture in Wikipedia has been debated a lot in recent years. I'm not here to discuss myself or that, but thought I would address this feedback since I've had an active voice in this particular article and discussion and have done that in good faith. Cheers! Grant18650602 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The level of coverage to this point falls short of establishing encyclopedic notability. If such notability arises in the future, the article can be refunded and expanded accordingly. No objection to draftification at this point, or userfication if there is an editor who would want to take this up in their userspace. BD2412 T 02:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject was never elected to office and seems to have minor local political coverage, so WP:POLITICIAN does not apply. The subject does not have reliable sources providing significant coverage to establish general notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2025 (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.