Talk:Ed Lopez

Self-published sources
We are not allowed to use self-published sources in articles about living people. I've removed citations to Rhode Island Latino Political Empowerment, self-published through Lulu.com, and a paper published through Scribd.  Will Beback   talk    00:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've also removed this blog: Blogs, as self-published sources, aren't allowed either.  Will Beback   talk    20:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Eretz and Galut: North America: Vice Chair of Republican Liberty Caucus resigns in protest against Ron Paul. Calls Paul supporters "a cult" prone to bigotry and conspiracy theories.

Infobox officeholder
Template:Infobox officeholder is intended for use by holders of public office, not people on the boards of private organizations. If it is being used in the article of other non-officeholders it should be removed from those too.  Will Beback   talk    16:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I can understand you Will: you edit out constituency because Eduardo is not as you say "an elected officeholder in the usual meaning" although he got elected by Republicans. So could you please define what is an elected officeholder in the usual meaning? You then decide to eliminate the infobox, by arguing that it "is intended for use by holders of public office, not people on the boards of private organizations." Can you please point to Wikipedia policy on use of inboxes? Can you also explain why you believe the Republican Liberty Caucus is a private organization? Thanks! --Ts5seeker (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the linked template, you'll see that it is intended for ambassadors, congressmen, governors, prime ministers, and similar public officials. The RLC is a private organization, not a part of government. It has its own independent bylaws, etc. Nor is it comparable to congressional caucuses, which are composed entirely of elected officials.   Will Beback    talk    17:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Republicans are a suitable constituency and the infobox is appropriate as is (I put the infobox back). All party leaders - Democrats, Republicans, etc. in both the general party and auxiliaries use this infobox or the politician infobox. I think the chronological changes Will Beback made are really good - but I think the infobox that was there, including the constituency, was appropriate as well.--Libertyconsulting (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the party leaders should use it either. It may be used in those cases because the subjects are former officeholders. Note though that the RLC is not a party, so it is not the same situation.    Will Beback    talk    17:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies. So if other parties, parties' leaders, etc. use it, why shouldn't it be used in this entry?
 * As for the meaning of "constituency", see Constituency or Constituency.   Will Beback    talk    17:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The dictionary link you have provided fits perfectly well with the intended use of constituency in this entry, as in a body of people entitled to elect a representative. That's precisely how Eduardo got elected. So why this argument, when it fits the definition to a t? The RLC a private organization? As in an organization within a political party, a private organization? Since when political parties are private organizations? I'm sorry for all the questions but this doesn't sound right to me.--Ts5seeker (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I read the sources correctly, the subject was elected to an "at-large" seat of a private organization. He does not represent a defined geographical area.
 * Political parties are private organizations, just like clubs. They may choose their membership, etc. Further, I'm not aware of any formal connection between the RLC and the RNC. The RLC bylaws do not require members to be members of the Republican Party; they merely require "affiliation".    Will Beback    talk    17:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From the Republican Liberty Caucus page: "The Republican Liberty Caucus is a political action organization dedicated to promoting the ideals of individual liberty, limited government and free market economics within the Republican Party in the United States." Also Will, I am totally lost with what you say about RLC being a private organization. In Wikipedia's entry about political parties, there's only one mention to private and it has to do with funding. As per the infobox information in the link you provided, it also specifies use for politician. Do you not think a political activist, elected in elections of a political party, to a political position, is not a politician?--Ts5seeker (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ts5seeker and Will Beback: I'll try the politician infobox. It should be suitable to this - you're both welcome to give feedback, of course, but I definitely think either infobox is applicable.--Libertyconsulting (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your objection to using Template:Infobox Person? It's very flexible.   Will Beback    talk    17:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * HI Libertyconsulting, I agree that politician infobox seems appropriate. Will?--Ts5seeker (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback: I honestly feel the opposite is the better question; many articles for partisan organization leaders use the politician or the office-holder infobox. As a reader myself, I feel the politician box also serves the function of allowing the reader to navigate back and forth between others who have held the same post (in this case, there's no article on Lopez-Reyes' predecessor, but I think there should be and I will make the effort to create that when I have the time). I actually don't understand why the generic person infobox would be used in a case for which a type of box has been created, e.g., Mike Tyson's infobox is for boxers, specifically - I don't see why we'd move away from the specificity of what Lopez-Reyes' role is by using a more generic infobox rather than the politician infobox. --Libertyconsulting (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is that Vice Chair of the RLC is not a particularly significant post. It's a secondary office in a somewhat obscure political group. If the subject were appointed treasurer of the local PTA would we include a similar box to cover that position? I don't think so. Can you point me to the other biographies you're referring to?   Will Beback    talk    20:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, I appreciate all your contributions and your experience here. I don't question any of that, but I honestly feel some of the points you raise are just for the sake of debate. I've noticed you work quite heavily on the Republican Liberty Caucus (as have I since I started writing) and (more specifically) that you follow specific writers on Wikipedia (I've seen at least two discussions to that effect - maybe three). In your role here, do you focus on certain things at certain times? I'm asking sincerely since I am relatively new to this myself.

I just get the sense you have a very strong view or personal opinion on a number of things; I don't question your being capable of improving these pages but at times I notice when you have your point of view, there are never two or more people who can disagree with you and feel like the work they did or a choice they made was reasonable. I'm not saying that's the case with this entire article, necessarily; and I am asking with sincerity - but there's something entirely counterintuitive (in my own opinion) about your issue with the infobox: we're talking about a political actor. Somehow we are to take a scale you have in your mind as the determining factor in whether or not this political actor should be edited into a politician infobox or not? Your view is that the "Vice Chair of the RLC is not a particularly significant post," so does this mean if any of us write any new articles on officers elected to similar organizations you will be engaging is in this debate to infinity?

I feel public access to information on who is elected to officer roles and boards on groups such as the Republican Liberty Caucus or the Democratic Liberty Caucus - if such a group exists - is paramount to understanding these organizations. I think these officer roles are important. Why does your view suffice for a decision here but not mine? I'm not implying you have acted on this with respect to this page - but I saw a similar debate between you and another writer on the actual Republican Liberty Caucus page. I have to say I actually see the other writer's point but you had your way and edited the page the way you saw fit, period.

I don't think anyone here will question your experience. As I say above, I've noticed other discussions you've participated in and I see a similar pattern (I think sometimes it borders on going too far when others don't see things your way: your editing can get quite heavy-handed. I say that with a great deal of respect for you - but I see a potential for problems here).

Simply stated: you can't compare a PTA to a national organization - this is an organization that was once chaired by a sitting congressman, who is currently running for president; I don't think it's quite fair that people who invest their free time to help write these items out have to explain details like this. I'm frankly disheartened by this because it seems some of the points you raise just waste considerable time unnecessarily. If you don't feel a national organization is worth a Wikipedia entry, can't you simply skip it and work on pages you are more keenly interested in? I digress.

Some examples:

Regarding your view on the significance of the post (of officers or Board members in similar organizations):
 * DNC leadership: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee (most leadership roles include articles about their members, from the Chair to the Communications Director)
 * Republican Leadership Council: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Leadership_Council (Board members listed, most linked to articles)

Regarding use of the politician box:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reince_Priebus (politician box).
 * see predecessor Mehlman
 * see predecessor Duncan

To answer your question more directly: would use the infobox for a PTA member? If this PTA was a national organization that was at one point chaired by a sitting congressman who is running for president and that exercises muscle in the form of a PAC, sure. What you are comparing, however, are apples and oranges. I think it may be a matter of what subjects one is interested in helping write on Wikipedia. I may be learning Wikipedia but feel seasoned enough to discern the relevance of some things and know there are others that agree: Ts5seeker? This is supposed to be informative and it's supposed to add knowledge and resources. I can offer more examples of the items above - but I honestly feel the point is well-made: you can't compare a national organization and its officers to a local PTA. That's absurd.--Libertyconsulting (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I want to emphasize Will Beback, that I say this with the greatest respect in the world for the work you've done here, which I imagine is quite ample. I just feel I speak for more than myself here in that we're all trying to contribute resources to Wikipedia - I just feel quite strongly that it's unfair to compare a PTA to a national organization. It's a distraction from actually improving the accuracy of the article (articles related to the organization) - a process which includes choosing the specificity of infoboxes as carefully as you advocate yourself. I can't wrap my head around the idea that the politician infobox is inadequate here.--Libertyconsulting (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's a bit of an open question whether someone who ran and lost a contest for secretary of state is primarily a politician. I'd regard the subject as more of an activist, which is how the article describes him.
 * The PTA is also a national organization. There are countless organizations and groups, including huge numbers of political organizations with vice chairmen. But the subject's role as an officer of the RLC is not why he is notable. I think it's a misuse of the template, but at least we got rid of the nonsensical "constituency" slot.
 * The RLC is not similar to the DNC. It is perhaps more comparable to the Republican Jewish Coalition or the Log Cabin Republicans.
 * I have 14,599 articles on my watchlist, and have edited at least 26,592 distinct pages on Wikipedia. I have eclectic interests and work in many topics. This and other RLC-related articles have suddenly been getting a lot of attention from new editors, which is great. I'm just trying to make sure that the end product is consistent with Wikipedia policies and practices. Thanks for being patient with me.   Will Beback    talk    21:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I am totally new to Wikipedia and I've spent some time reading about its guidelines. But by the way things have developed in this discussion page, it's clear that guidelines and policies are regularly disregarded. Take for examle the discussion about "constituency". An editor with +26,000 edits comes and edits out. A discussion as per definition of constituency follows. Rather than engaging in discussion, and realising that his position can't be sustained, experienced editor edits out anyway, disregarding other opinions and more importantly dictionary definitions! So I don't know why some people spend so much time coming up with policies that are totally ignored by very experienced editors. The consensus of this discussion is clearly in favor of keeping "constituency" as it was. Why was it taken out then? Same goes for discussion about infobox for politicians, and for RLC being a private organization. Why should we accept Will's opinion that it is an obscure organization? Obscure says who? Can that statement be backed up with reliable sources?--Ts5seeker (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One policy page which you might have missed is WP:Assume good faith. I have engaged in the discussion here, obviously. But, while Wikipedia does operate on consensus, consensus on a talk page cannot redefine common words.   Will Beback    talk    02:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Will I am aware of WP:Assume good faith. Your engagement in this discussion has totally unproductive. The dictionary provides a very clear definition of constituency, and you have persisted in linking it with geographical districts, which is just one of its meanings. For it also means "a body of citizens entitled to elect a representative." This may well be applied to Eduardo, or to any other elected individual, such as trade union leaders, community leaders, neighbor associations leaders, etc. Your stance on this topic is totally unsustainable, subjective and inaccurate. Yet you think that applying a dictionary definition amounts to redifinition of words, and on top of it, after ignoring us and the dictionary, you pretend that we assume good faith. You may have done thousands of edits, but in this instance you are simply wrong.--Ts5seeker (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Even taking the broadest possible definition of "constituency", the only conceivable constituency of a board member of the RLC is members of the RLC, not " Republicans in the United States".   Will Beback    talk    05:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Unhelpful editing
Hi, I'm new around here so please don't bite. I have noticed that changes to edits that don't make sense are reverted, just like that (Constituency - Will Beback). Isn't editing Wikipedia meant to be regulated by Wikipedia policy? Explanations will be appreciated. --Ts5seeker (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything on Wikipedia is open to change. If there's a disagreement then it's best to discuss it here on the article talk page.   Will Beback    talk    17:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback: I disagree with something you've edited out several times - the RLC website. Any of the officers elected to roles in the RLC are elected to represent the organization. The organization's website is just as legitimate to list, in my view, as their own because that is the entity they represent. I'm not going to bother with that - but my guess is someone else will replace that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyconsulting (talk • contribs) 18:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this article isn't about the RLC, which has an article of its own. If the subject was on the board of the local PTA we wouldn't include that website either.   Will Beback    talk    19:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many, many articles out there where my view is clearly supported: an officer for an organization represents that organization. The content of that website reflects their work too. If the national vice chair didn't have his own website, no one would question this. Yes, I can find many examples of this too. I didn't think something as silly as this would come up. The preponderance of articles that reflect my view is sufficient evidence. Here's a random one that I used before: the current Chairman of the Republican National Committee.--Libertyconsulting (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the RLC is not the RNC. That said, the RNC site is not linked from the RNC Chair's infobox, nor is there a bare link to the site in the EL section. Reince Priebus.   Will Beback    talk    22:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Name
Virtually all of the sources, and even the subject's personal website, call him "Ed Lopez". WP:NC says that articles should be titled with the most common name. Is there any reason why we shouldn't move the article to Ed Lopez?  Will Beback   talk    19:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems linking to Ed Lopez would make sense. But it seems clear the full name is Lopez-reyes.--Libertyconsulting (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We can specify that in the lead. However we don't title articles to legal birthnames. We use common names instead.   Will Beback    talk    21:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK - sounds good.--Libertyconsulting (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.   Will Beback    talk    22:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Where can we find a photo for this page?--Libertyconsulting (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The simplest thing might be to write the subject and ask him if he has rights to a portrait he could donate to the Wikimedia Foundation.   Will Beback    talk    22:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm Here Now
Hey Folks - my original name was "banned" because I sounded like a "group" of people. Rest assured, it's me, myself, and I alone. Libertyconsulting (as in one who can consult for the cause of liberty and freedom) is now the "Libertydude." Any talk about the Lopez-Reyes (Lopez) page, the Liberty Republicans, etc... feel free to drop me a line. I'd like to continue working with you (Will Beback and Ts5seeker, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertydude (talk • contribs) 01:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back.   Will Beback    talk    01:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ed Lopez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415014508/http://www.providencephoenix.com/archive/features/98/06/25/LOPEZ.html to http://www.providencephoenix.com/archive/features/98/06/25/LOPEZ.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability - article content
Hi,

I just took a quick look at this article and I have two thoughts:
 * Perhaps while trying to improve notability, there are things in the article that are not appropriate for a biography of a living person and particularly a politician. Wikipedia is not a forum to promote Lopez.
 * There's an entire section on his Op-eds. I have never seen that before. There are some other things that don't look to be appropriate. The article should focus on his education, career changes and highlights. Not so much what he thinks about things.

I would be happy to go ahead and make some edits - and see if there is notable content for him. It would be far better, too, to have a smaller, targeted article than one with a lot of filler. Thoughts about that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Carole, I would agree that tightening the article up would be more helpful. It seems to be the notability issue was already debated. I tend to see a lot of articles on Wikipedia that could be emancipated from template messages by making the piece tighter. From looking at the article it seems there are some fundamental differences from 2016, including the subject's involvement in three US federal political issues - the gay marriage issue, the Johnson campaign, and the popular vote issue - those issues along seem sufficient, the Huntsman information may not be necessary, for example - but statewide campaigns for public office in the past seem germane.Grant18650602 (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Please let me know how I can help. If you're willing to remove content or help edit, I'd prefer to help narrow things down after you've given it a more thorough look. I agree that the notability would improve by narrowing the focus of the page, but I feel you would be a better judge of that based on your editing experience: happy to help where you feel it's appropriate.Grant18650602 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I can take a stab at it. It's pretty clear what needs to be cut: the op-en section, some of the personal life info - guitar - boil down the Freedom to Marry section, etc. How about if I dig in and see how it looks after that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sound good, Carole - thanks so much: I feel I've added a lot of the items because I wanted to make the article stronger - but I think a handful of the newer links actually improved the article beyond what the older ones did leading up to 2016, e.g., CSPAN and PBS. Maybe those were misplaced in the "external links" (I put them there since I though they provided great context but was copyrighted material, right?) but they certainly add substance to what is being covered here. I think, on links that have been categorized as "deprecated" I feel torn on it based on how they are used and feel the discussion on a lot of these has become too political for an encyclopedia - but I avoid those debates as much as possible. On Newsmax, I think it's one thing to use it to try to substantiate an article and another to point to something that provides context instead - I think the link I had added some time ago did that. If we can't mention anything Newsmax, then maybe Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about Newsmax itself at all. I don't know. There are other articles where I add things more sparingly: but I feel a couple of times some items in this one have been debated despite many other articles having similar sections, resources, and information. I yield back to you though! Grant18650602 (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I made edits to reorganize the information a bit more, put non-notable content into notes - so that it doesn't seem to scream "promotional content", and a few edits. I am not getting what is useful in the 2016 presidential election section - what is being said here that is/are significant career highlights? There's more quotes that should be paraphrased - it's not quotes about what someone is saying.


 * I can see that it's borderline a notability issue, but I think that he's notable enough based upon national presence. Just my opinion.


 * The content now in notes could be removed entirely, but if nothing else they are called out here for review. Perhaps there are some additional factors that make the content more notable that aren't mentioned.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, I forgot two things: it would be nice to have a bit more in the intro... and what did he do in New Hampshire?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

In response to your comments,, if there are some things in external links that could be used to augment what is in the article, it would be better to create a "Further reading" section, formatted as citations. I'll go back and look at the list again.

I am lost about why NewsMax is not considered a reliable, credible source - so we shouldn't have an article about it. .–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Following up on your notes, Carole: I hear you on the Newsmax item, I follow political content a lot and honestly feel so much of it is biased on both sides. So I've become a bit cynical about when it's used and when it's not used for citations here - as well as what's categorized as deprecated; I'm just starting to feel a lot of the decisions on these things are based on political inclinations (not that I'm a Newsmax fan, but, just sayin'). On New Hampshire - I'm not sure I edited that content in the past - or if I mentioned it may have been based on resources that were there before. I'll have to poke around and see what it was, and see if I can help with that. I think it's the Rockingham County reference - the presidential primaries. I think the article looks a lot better. Grant18650602 (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it helps, but my two cents worth: The factors of what makes reputable sources IMO are: good editorial control, fact-checking, I prefer newspapers that have really good investigative journalists, and I avoid opinion pieces.


 * I don't know what to do with the notability tag. The article has been nominated for deletion once already and the decision was to keep... which to me means, he's notable enough. If there's enough concern to tag for notability, it would seem that someone is really saying that they think it should be nominated for deletion again. I don't think that there's any other way to prove greater notability until his career progresses more.


 * I have been chewing on your comments about the links. I looked them over again and I think most should not be added back. There were a couple at the bottom of the list that could be reviewed to see if there's content to help with notability. If there's nothing new there, I don't see the point in adding them back. Your thoughts?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This is where I hopped off the train on edits today and tapped you for feedback since you have more experience and worked on the article before: the notability tag that is there now was added today, despite a prior decision discussed by *several* editors in 2016 to *keep*, after I reversed a *tiny* edit. After I reversed the edit, and stated my reason for the reversal, the person I disagreed with made a number of changes and added the new notability tag. I know we’re to assume good faith on edits but the response seemed disproportionate. Especially since the discussion on the original notability tag had taken place prior to two or three items of national significance being added and cited/referenced properly in the article. The other issue is references and citations have a fluidity on Wikipedia that is increasingly difficult to follow and got worse around the 2016 election. Some references in this article and others seemed to be fine until the temperature on political articles rose. In a lot of articles, as in this one, links change or disappear and can only be accessed on web archives or website archives. But I’m not sure it should change the substance of the article. I’d have to look at the links that were deleted: if you are referring to the external links, I was more concerned with the PBS and CSPAN links - because then it seems deleting those is almost a way to conceal notability? Grant18650602 (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * IMO, the external links to interviews don't add to his notability. It looks like WP:Promotion. Notability is based upon career experience and achievements, not about promotional activities to build one's career.


 * I did some poking around and I found that there are a number of articles about politicians that have a lot of external links. My understanding has been that for biographies of living people that there should just be one major social media account and not a lot of other links. How about picking out the top four links that you think should be there - hopefully not all social media?–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding sources getting rolled off but found in webarchive, they are still valid sources. (As an aside, I have sometimes found content on another page on the same domain. Like the file structure structure changed.)


 * I am beginning to wonder if this is a conflict of interest situation. Are you connected to the subject of the article in any way?–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t remember the links that were in this article before; when I’ve added links to articles I don’t think I’ve ever added social media links (like Facebook) because I’ve never felt they fit encyclopedic content well. Usually, when I’ve edited articles, I look for similar article subject matters to better understand what’s acceptable and what isn’t which is why I thought the interviews were relevant. No conflict of interest: I focus on subjects that are on the libertarian, election reform, and socially progressive plane and followed news about third parties during the 2016 election more closely so I did some editing in that space. But editing political articles seems difficult so I don’t edit as much as I’d like to. I check items I’ve edited periodically; I think I may have made the case for edits on articles like Lincoln Chafee as well (a long time ago), but I don’t think I’ve had to make the case for edits I’ve made too often. I’ve collected sources for other articles, like Liz Mair’s, who has navigated similar political areas, but time (lack of) betrays my intentions.Grant18650602 (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's the diff with the external links.


 * I am glad to know it's not a conflict of interest situation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I looked at the links and think I added some of them based on what I’d seen in other similar articles; I’m agnostic on their use but I may have referenced some things from them in a previous draft. Incidentally, I checked the Liz Mair article, an example I mentioned of an article I’d hoped to help flesh out and improve and noticed it has similar issues and the same notability tag. I know this is for discussion on that article and not this one, but I wonder how many political articles run into simile issues. Grant18650602 (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * From my experience, issues around notability and proper sources abound in articles about politicians, actors, musicians, authors, capital venturists (is that a word?), and so much more. In essence, it's an issue for biographies of living people (a combination of a drive to recognize and promote people - but without enough experience yet to be widely acknowledge in books, newspapers, magazines, etc.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Better source tag
I have not heard of this site until today, would it qualify as a better source than this existing source in the article?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's a defunct periodical / newspaper: The_Phoenix_(newspaper). It seems an archive is still maintained even though that archive has been offline more than once for whatever reason. It seems like a legitimate source - since it's defunct, who knows if it would've passed scrutiny today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant18650602 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I guess we can give this a bit of time and see if anyone else has opinions about this. I could not find another source. If neither sources are good, it seems like what needs to be done is to remove all the cited information from that source - which I think would be education and early career info.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I took a look at The Phoenix (newspaper) that had a redirect from Providence Phoenix and don't see an issue with this source, and I saw that it won awards for its quality journalism, so this seems to me to be a "better source".


 * , does this site work for you as a better source? If so, I would be happy to replace the current source and make any copy edits for info not found in this source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * that's a really 1998 newspaper site, isn't it! If it's a normal WP:NEWSORG then sure - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yep. Okay, thanks! I'll swap it in.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ here in a series of edits, needed other sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Notability
, Do you have any thoughts about what needs to be done to resolve the notability tag?

The article was nominated for deletion in 2016 and the decision was to keep, which of course can be revisited. I think you were the one that added the tag, and I just wanted to check your thoughts about it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The notability in the 2016 AFD was founded on mentions on two deprecated sites (Daily Caller, Newsmax) - and deprecated sites can't connote notability.
 * The article at present seems to describe a background political operative, who was a losing candidate at one point. Coverage that names him tends to be local, which is questionable for broader political coverage, particularly as he's never held office in his own right. More prominent coverage that's listed as a reference, e.g. Time, doesn't name him. It's not at all clear he meets WP:NPOL. So a tag questioning his notability seems apposite.
 * He needs to be clearly notable under WP:GNG, WP:NPOL or some other guideline, and he doesn't seem to be yet. Is this all the coverage there is of Lopez in RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really clear and I agree with your conclusion about Lopez - and then what notability guidelines apply. A couple of follow-up questions:
 * What is RSes?
 * I am not trying to nit-pick, just wondering: If it was decided to keep based upon two poor sources, and those sources aren't used anymore, isn't that better (well, unless the notable content is only found in those two sources)
 * So, it sounds like the net-net is that the notability tag should remain until 1) he advances in his career or 2) the article is deleted. Is that right?


 * I am going to copy some of this into the notability tag for future reference. It's really helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * RS = Reliable sources - basically, good enough to base an article on, and identify the subject as noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * - Ahhhhhh, my mind didn't go to "RS" and make it plural. Yes, of course.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)