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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Lopez[edit]

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

Unremarkable local politician. It's basically the third most common name in the world, so it's hard to really say there isn't any sources, but I'm not really seeing anything.

The article doesn't even make any claims that, were they true and source-able, would establish notability, but it probably falls short of A7.

The article is vaguely promotional throughout, but probably falls short of G11. TimothyJosephWood 19:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree that the article is too promotional and does not adhere to NPOV guidelines. The use of words with a promotional connotation such as "avid" seems to be

rampant and the little to no notability as well as frequent grammatical errors does not help its case. Feels like it was written by a campaign manager Wikicommandercros (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article creator has responded on the article's talk page. ansh 666 03:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Las Vegas is certainly a large enough city that its city councillors would be accepted as notable if they were written and sourced properly — but this article, as written, is essentially a campaign brochure rather than a proper encyclopedia article, and is referenced to a mix of primary sourcing, routine namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him, and a single piece of coverage that is about him but is in a WordPress blog rather than a reliable source. This is neither the substance nor the sourcing that it takes to make a city councillor notable just for being a city councillor. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but nothing present here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2017 (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.