| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Edit warring
editI believe my edits about Israel vs. Gomez are well-sourced and appropriate, but they have been repeatedly reverted, 3 times by one editor, once by an anonymous editor, note WP:3RR. Here are the diffs:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Gomez&action=historysubmit&diff=385012896&oldid=385012733
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Gomez&action=historysubmit&diff=385015396&oldid=385013406
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Gomez&action=historysubmit&diff=385016727&oldid=385016536
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Gomez&action=historysubmit&diff=385018558&oldid=385018321
Let's see if we can reach consensus here. A related discussion is at Talk:New York's 2nd congressional district. -Colfer2 (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that it is possible to argue with campaign workers, and since they are not interested in Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but abuse it as a campaign place, they will never get to know about Wikipedia's rules and usages. In this case, WP:Notability has not yet been established, and I will add the tag again. On the other side, I'm doubtful if on a bio of a living person a statement (sourced or not) like "...has no chance to win..." (or variations thereof) can be added. After all, in the absence of a quotable poll, it's just an opinion, not a fact. Kraxler (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- WP:Reliable sources say Gomez is strongly favored to lose. That suffices, as long as it is relevant to the article. A poll is not required, and in fact a secondary source is better than a primary source, such as a poll.
- Any major-party candidate for a Congressional seat is notable, I think. -Colfer2 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The CQ Politics site was last updated on October 19, 2009, it does no even cite Gomez. The Media Matter site doesn't talk about his chances to lose. Sorry, Colfer, that doesn't look so reliable. Besides, I do not question the sourcing, but the wisdom of adding some such statement to a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For notability see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians, 3.; and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event, especially the beginning of the "What is one event?" secton. Kraxler (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Based on WP:POLITICIAN and the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28people%29/Archive_2010#Candidates_for_legislative_elections I now agree with Kraxler on notability. There was very little in Google News, even when expanded to all of 2010. I suggest merging this article to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2010.
- As for the CQ rating, they will update it if they think the seat is no longer "Safe Democrat". My second source for Israel's likely win is http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-15/sarah-palin-has-another-strong-primary-night/ which says "Gomez is going up against Democratic Rep. Steve Israel, who is considered safe." -Colfer2 (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have put merger tags on John Gomez and United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2010#District 2. Discuss at: Talk:United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2010#Merge from John Gomez. Thanks. -Colfer2 (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, Colfer, the Daily Beast site has a quotable assessment. One should not make too much of it though. Anyway, I agree with the merger. Kraxler (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)