Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lira (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. and I will note upfront that the clear SPA's input has been disregarded as have been claims of article popularity, which is to be expected with the canvassing. What remains though is no consensus and policy-based arguments from established editors on both sides of the debate and I don't see a relist bringing on anything settled. While the current coverage has stemmed largely from his being potentially detained, with sourcing covering him as an author, we're out of BLP1E territory. This is not strong enough for a clear keep, although n/c defaults there. I highly suggest this be revisited when he's no longer in the news. Star Mississippi 20:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Gonzalo Lira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been deleted before. Lira doesn't seem notable at all. He's a dating coach and YouTuber who spent some time in Ukraine, and recently has been talked about in fringe circles because of his alleged disappearance. The sourcing is very weak. It seems to me that he doesn't even deserve a mention in any of the articles, let alone to have his own separate article. BeŻet (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Lira has a wide following and is definitely a notable person. He deserves a wikipedia page if people from 100 years ago who made a small impact in some city had one. The people who even suggested it be deleted are mad because he doesn't hold the same opinions as him. 83.233.193.18 (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC) ----<--- — 83.233.193.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GizzyCatBella🍁 01:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: Agree with the above. 71.163.99.14 (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)— 71.163.99.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - ..quite a bit of coverage [1] or [2] (just following the links above) - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't a lot of coverage. Not a single major outlet talks about him. BeŻet (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is CNN major enough for you? --> [3] - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That article is dead. BeŻet (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • What do you mean dead?It’s right here [4] - CNN Chile MUNDOCRISIS EN UCRANIA 18.04.2022 / 14:46 - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I get an error when I visit the page. I've just archived the page on Wayback Machine and it's the same thing. The article may have been deleted and you still see the cached version. BeŻet (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, its not deleted on Wayback Machine -->[5] Can you see India Today then? -->[6] is this major enough for you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not really, we're looking for decent coverage to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Per WP:NRV, No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest. BeŻet (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  Like this one for example? [7]. These sources are all in the article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  Not like this one. There is no significant independent coverage. Currently he's just mentioned in Spanish-language media because of his alleged disappearance, see WP:NOTNEWS. BeŻet (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  That source talks exclusively about Lira and his life. What are you talking about? PS - I’m reminding you to remove your “delete” vote below. You nominated this article for deletion and a few hours later voted delete. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  We are assessing WP:NOTABLITY here, and for that we need to show significant coverage, which Lira lacks. And I don't need to remove my "vote", decisions here are not made by vote count, I have merely explicitly stated my position. BeŻet (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  No, that's not how it’s done. You don’t get to nominate the article for deletion, express your opinion and then do it again behind other people. It looks like these are comments of two different editors, might affect the opinion of other people and influence the outcome of the discussion. Anyway, I hope the closing person will notice that you marked your opinion in two separate places. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He is a notable person due to the recent coverage he has presented on the Ukrainian/Russia conflict. His reach has been quite large particularly on his telegram and other channels. Even if we disagree with the perspective taken, we should be neutral and acknowledge his contribution to the media space. Degarmot155 (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)— Degarmot155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Anyway, what matters here is across-the-board multinational coverage in a significant number of independent reliable sources including CNN [8] and Newsweek [9] There is enough here to pass GNG per WP:BASIC. Being covered by trustworthy independent newspapers is more than sufficient for notability. Also, I suspect it will be reported shortly what happened to him since his dissaperance - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About CNN: you linked an archived URL. Where is the original article? Retracted articles can not be used to establish notability. About Newsweek: 1) see WP:NEWSWEEK. Post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. So it also can not be used to establish notability. 2) The Newsweek article is a summary and translation of content from Russia's state TV Channel One. "Being covered by trustworthy independent newspapers is more than sufficient for notability." What newspapers? The deleted CNN article and WP:NEWSWEEK that translated the content from Russian state media? Renat 12:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check all Spanish language newspapers included in the article then. RenatUK, look, after over 30.000 hits in just a few hours this article generated, arguments that this Lira person might not be notable because you don’t like linked Newsweek or CNN Chile articles have no grounds anymore. I suggest you focus on improving the article instead. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested only in reliable independent sources that are relevant to this deletion discussion. "... look, after over 30.000 hits in just a few hours this article generated, arguments that this Lira person might not be notable because you don’t like linked Newsweek or CNN Chile articles have no grounds anymore." 1) WP:POPULARPAGE. "Simply because a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is not notable." 2) You used WP:NEWSWEEK and the deleted CNN article in your argument here, in this deletion discussion. I explained to you why these sources can not used to establish notability. It has nothing to do whether I like something or now. Please read my message above again. Just because you said "... have no grounds anymore" does not mean that my argument lost its strength. I suggest you focus on improving the article instead. And I suggest you not to tell me what to do. Renat 13:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from above - Simply because a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is not notable. What of earth are you talking about? This page is of interests to Wikipiedia readers. 30.000 reader in a few hours. Okay, let’s end this exchange right here, please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who still believe Lira is not notable might want to take a quick peek at the number of views this article generated in one day of its existence here. (33,000) Do you have an answer to this BeŻet? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom BeŻet (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: BeŻet (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
    • Well .. you nominated this page for deletion BeŻet, your position is already known. You should remove your Delete above. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Canvassing and bad arguments aren't an excuse for blatantly misleading double votes (i.e. "per nom" as though "nom" is someone else). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable person. I don't see a reason for deletion. Elserbio00 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daily Beast is the biggest outlet that mentioned him. Could you explain why do you think he's notable? BeŻet (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You just did. Havradim leaf a message 17:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't understand. There is only the Daily Beast source, and per WP:DAILYBEAST we should apply caution to begin with. BeŻet (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        What about all other sources? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        We also have El Pais[10] Even though El Pais mentions Sputnik, the fact that they relaunched the article means that they believe it is an important fact. Mhorg (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thats El Pais from Costa Rica not Spain (still both reliable) - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, I didn't noticed... Mhorg (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        To be truthful, Lira is known for being a propagandist and spreading unfounded conspiracy theories. I don't see how having Lira's propaganda being reprinted in Russia-state-owned media, Sputnik, makes him notable for anything except being a pro-Putin shill. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Which ones? Most of them are not RS as discussed here. BeŻet (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The Daily Beast article says of Lira "How a Sleazy American Dating Coach Became a Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine" So should we put in his article that Lira notable for being a "Sleazy American Dating Coach" or for being a "Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine" or both, a "Sleazy American Dating Coach" and a "Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, the talk page also shows host most of the sources used are unreliable. BeŻet (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this person is very notable in circles which do not support the west's participation in the war taking place in Ukraine - User:BeŻet refers to that circle derisively as "fringe circles". The circle is certainly against the majority opinion in the west but that does not mean it should be ignored. Mr Lira is a notable political dissident and opinion former, along with outlets such as The Duran, Alex Christoforous, Alexander Mercouris, iEarlGrey, Patrick Lancaster, etc. all dissident voices, broadly advocating the surrender of Zelensky as the rational action for Ukraine to take, thereby saving the lives of innocent Ukrainian people. The circle - espousing political realism - views the victory of Russia (a nuclear power) as inevitable, and therefore resistance to the last Ukrainian life as irrational and inhumane. The mainstream media and mainstream press do not in general cover the viewpoints of western persons who do not support the west's participation in the war taking place in Ukraine, thus it would not be possible to quote sources from the mainstream press, which is generally acting as a cheerleader for the west's participation in the war, albeit ostensibly behind the scenes, in supplying weapons, funding, training, etc. The western press is in fact actively suppressing viewpoints such as expressed by Mr Lira, and deeming anyone who expresses support or sympathy for Putin's position as "Putin's puppets", "Pro-Putin shill", "propagandist", etc. and other derogatory appellations. (Note: the West is not at war with Russia/war has not been declared, so why should western citizens not be allowed to support Putin / Putin's position ? We should be free to argue for either side in a foreign war, as we deem fit, without suffering insults). There are few more notable voices in this political circle than Mr Lira. The article should thus be kept.212.104.155.43 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A deletion discussion from 8 years ago has little to no bearing on the condition of the present article. This is not an article about a dating coach, the same way Rolando Santiz is not an article about a volunteer firefighter. While the books and films from the subject's past might not necessarily have established notability in and of themselves, we now have the Daily Beast as a reliable, independent source giving us significant in-depth coverage of this subject, to the point that almost no effort is required to write a comprehensive biography. The subject's disappearance from the location of a war he was reporting on, under the foggy conditions of a conflict with worldwide implications, only adds to the notoriety. Controversial is not equal to not notable. Havradim leaf a message 17:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notoriety is not notability, and the aforementioned CNN article actually provides nothing about the subject's life and works, because all that it says is things about the subject that are currently unknown. An encyclopaedia biography is for things about the subject that are known. Currently this discussion has 1 in-depth independent source. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Currently this discussion has 1 in-depth independent source - which one? - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The one that Havradim just mentioned. Notice that I said "in-depth independent", not anything else. Uncle G (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Daily Beast you mean? What about all other sources. Check all for "in-depth independent" , DB is not the only one, come on. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • .. they are all in Spanish though - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • There were no other such sources when I wrote that. You had only cited CNN and India Today, both of which do not in fact document this person in depth, as I explained. Ironically, it was the nominator who pointed to an in-depth source, and not you at all. You've pointed to exactly 1 more source since, but that in fact is, yet again, all about how things about the person are currently unknown, and does not provide in-depth biographical information about this person, explicitly using the word "desconoce" indeed. Your vague handwaves at search engines are not actual source citations, note. If you want to bring in sources, cite them. Search engine pages are not source citations. Find a 2nd source that does not document not knowing things, but that documents this person's life and work in depth, and cite it. The nominator is doing a better job of finding and actually citing sources in this discussion than you are, and the irony is that xe's the one that wants the article deleted. Uncle G (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • ..You had only cited CNN and India Today... You based your opinion based on my comment without reading the article and examining the sources? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • When my comment says how many sources are in this discussion, I base it on the number of sources in this discussion. Do you have a 2nd in-depth independent source to cite? The logical thing to do at this point is to cite one. Avoiding doing so indicates that in fact you do not have more than just that 1 source. Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:DAILYBEAST. There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Renat 12:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if this person is actually killed or kidnapped in Ukraine. If it turns out that he didn't have internet or something else, then I agree to remove it.--Mhorg (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that all people killed or kidnapped in Ukraine are automatically notable? Renat 12:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said that? Don’t put words in my mouth okay? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I replied to Mhorg. Renat 13:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but mixing the his previous notability and the kidnapping could prevent the article to be deleted. Mhorg (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhorg: I just wanted to let you know that Lira is not dead and is safe. Yesterday, the Cyprus Mail reported that Lira would "did not provide not details" of where he's been. It seems he was not "kidnapped" or, at least no RS makes any such "kidnapped" claim. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, he said that he was detained, that could be also kidnapped. And I think he was released after only a week because of the growing international scandal. However, I suppose there will be a way to find out what really happened. For now I would keep the article. Mhorg (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhorg: fair enough. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find a few articles he's written, and mostly press-releases saying he's gone missing. His career as a journalist has been pretty routine/non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He is possibly the only westerner who was blogging anti-Zelensky sentiment (a valid viewpoint available to a foreigner in a supposedly democratic country) from a basement in Kharkiv while being shelled by Russians and in fear of his life from the Ukrainian secret service, or Azov Brigade, one or other of which appears to have captured him, tortured him, and murdered him. But apart from that, un-notable, lol. Most western "journalists" are reporting from the safety of Lviv, hundreds of miles west of the warzone. Lira was in the warzone itself.212.104.155.43 (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem blissfully unaware that there are dozens of reporters who were/are in Kharkiv. And that's real reporters, not YouTubers. One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight etc. BeŻet (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "A BBC reporter" 2. John Sparks 3. Roland Oliphant 4. Matt Bradley 5. Clarissa Ward 6. Jack Crosbie 7. "PBS reporters" 8. David Bouteiller and Clémence Dibout (You're welcome). Havradim leaf a message 04:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have articles for people far more obscure than Lira. I agree we need more WP:RS coverage on him, but at the end of the day he's article worthy imo due to the controversy. Should be noted that so far non-English news is covering him more at the moment. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see why a journalist / filmmaker / author who has potentially been kidnapped or murdered should be deleted off of Wikipedia. Even if he's not super famous, he previously wrote for outlets like Business Insider, not to mention that Wikipedia features a ton of articles on more or less obscure authors / filmmakers even when they haven't been potentially kidnapped. Hell, Wikipedia even has articles on persons whose only reason for being publicly known is having been kidnapped. Any journalist who is noteworthy enough to be kidnapped by a government is noteworthy enough to have an article about. Sarrotrkux (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the sources being proffered here, ironically as evidence of notability, say that this is not a known fact, and that indeed that there aren't known facts, this is clearly a fallacious rationale. Notability involves the person's life and work being documented in depth by multiple sources with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that are independent of the subject. Ironically, the only person offering anything like such a source so far is the person who wants the article deleted. Even the people challenged on this have not yet actually risen to the challenge of citing a 2nd in-depth independent good biographical source, and not just news reports from recent days not documenting things about this person's life and work, and in fact saying little more than that facts about this person are not known. A biography, from a place other than the Daily Beast, that is on point, in depth, properly fact checked, and not autobiography. This should be easy to provide if the world has in fact considered this person notable enough to document xyr life and work in depth. No amount of argument about other articles is going to cut the mustard, nor is argument about fame and importance (a criterion that was rejected back in 2004). Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether we agree with his views or not, he is a known individual on the social media, especially on YouTube and other social media networks. If the article is not well sourced, the challenge is to find those "acceptable" sources, that focus on individuals who are prominent in the social media. That the Daily Beast reserves so much criticism for him, gives hint of his impact -- again, whatever one thinks of his views. Wikipedia needs to agnostic in terms of whom it covers. It's only that way that more in cyberspace would find it a useful source of information regardless of the ideological stance of who is being cover. Views critical of him can also be raised here. I myself reached here by searching for his name. Fredericknoronha (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep News media covers him, so he is Wikipedia notable. Dream Focus 23:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only 1 in-depth independent source proffered so far. Notability requires multiple. And even the 1 source proffered is not considered an ideal biographical source by some. Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gonzalo Lira was a critical source of information during the invasion of Ukraine. Currently many newspapers, and reporters in Ukraine have reported that he has been allegedly kidnapped, tortured, and killed in Ukraine. He was known well for his criticism of the Zelenskyy presidency, and Russian media using his videos as propaganda material to paint Ukraine in a bad light. 2409:4066:93:21FA:AC26:9E67:2F0:F5E6 (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)----<--- 2409:4066:93:21FA:AC26:9E67:2F0:F5E6|contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Search Gonzalo Lira in Google News gives 52,300 results. After reviewing the first 100, I found all articles referred to the same Gozalo Lira of this discussion. Most of media oulets cited in Google News about Gonzalo Lira, correspond to articles in (Eng.) Wikipedia. E.g. La Tercera, CNN Chile, El Mostrador, Business Insider, Prensa Latina, etc. Monika772 (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)----<--- — Monika772 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - i understand that the very its existence disturbs some people, but as i know, Wikipedia is still not considered a "safe place". 46.55.224.167 (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)----<--- — contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets GNG, regardless of his political viewpoints.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. His disappearance might have been even
    staged to promote his popularity (this is my pure speculation) but that's not the point. This article received over 30,000 views in one day, so he is undoubtedly notable. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:POPULARPAGE. "Simply because a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is not notable." Renat 12:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ..article popularity is likely to correspond with some form of notability which should then be straightforward to verify. WP:POPULARPAGE - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "... which should then be straightforward to verify." How can someone verify that this person is notable? Renat 12:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    30.000 readers who visited this page in just a few hours, who knew or heard about that Lira person and searched for more information about him on Wikipedia (the source for information) = notable = verification. Logic, no? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We never use that to establish notability. This could have been traffic from the deletion page notice board, or from any other source. BeŻet (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the bigger issue is potentially WP:ONEEVENT. That is - 15 minutes of fame.
    I haven't made up my mind yet about this. Cononsense (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lira is about more than one event. He was an author, filmmaker and economics pundit long before he was a Ukraine war commentator. Havradim leaf a message 04:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP there is no basis for deletion, it is politically motivated attempt to silence someone who holds different views; we need to stop the cancer of cancel culture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.223.72 (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC) ----<--- — contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had never heard of this guy, but it was seeing multiple recent references to him in the news that prompted me to come to Wikipedia to learn about him. I add that subjective consideration to the notability data presented above by others. It may be Snowtime. JamesMLane t c 13:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gonzalo Lira is a well known filmaker, novelist, vlogger and now Zelenskyy critic, this is enough to have relevance for an article, as well as tons of articles on International Media.--Janitoalevic (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "tons of articles on International Media" - where? BeŻet (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gonzalo Lira is a well-known Chilean American journalist. His YouTube channel has over 100,000 followers. He has also been covered a lot in the mainstream media recently.Myatrrcc (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)— Myatrrcc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Note this one is possibly tagged incorrectly and disputed [11] editor made 200 edits since 2017 on at least 5 different topics.- GizzyCatBella🍁 18:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is WP:CANVASSING happening on Twitter. BeŻet (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's a vlogger, and like millions of other vloggers, he's a non-notable vlogger.BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we delay on this? Usually, I'd stay out of this, but the fact that a lot of people are referencing "Coach Red Pill is alive/dead" (depending on his current apparent status) at the moment means that, for the moment, he's notable enough to be worth keeping. Once his temporary celebrity from Ukraine goes down, then maybe delete, but for now, the article is useful for explaining "who's Coach Red Pill, and why are so many people invested in if he lives or dies?". Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 15:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just wanted to let you know that yesterday the Cyprus Mail confirmed Lira is alive, he is not dead, and he is safe. According to the Daily Beast, Lira is only notable for "How a Sleazy American Dating Coach Became a Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have requested at WP:BLPN that this article be reviewed for potential BLP violations. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Thank you for that. Please also notice sources misrepresentation issue ( See talk page [12] ) - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient media coverage, several publications in well-known publishing houses, writer and director of the movie Secuestro with e.g. the actors Katty Kowaleczko, Rodrigo Bastidas, Marcela del Valle. I suggest deciding notability to not be delayed -- many people voiced their opinion; to delay would mean to discard those voices. 93.224.99.202 (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)— 93.224.99.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova publicly mentioned him, hoped he was reunited with his family, and wished him well. If THIS does not make him notable, what would? Dorfpert (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Dorfpert 12:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC) ----<--- — Dorfpert (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Most of the coverage concerns his disappearance and reappearance - this looks like WP:BIO1E. Autarch (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No established notability. For the record, this is not a vote. Most of the keep votes are from IPs or new accounts, who seem to misunderstand WP:NOTABILITY. The whole story seems to be that a fascist fringe person who used Twitter to spread Russian propaganda temporarily lost his account, and his conspiracy circles made a conspiracy out of that. That's not even remotely notable. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, I just noticed that ... you referred to Lira above as a fascist fringe person without any source to back it up. I’ll take this opportunity to remind everyone that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well and that all editors are also subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions pursuant to WP:NEWBLPBAN
    • PS - @Jeppiz please strike that WP:BLP violation. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point. I had a quick look at what the individual publishes and that seems to provide ample support of what I wrote. Still, it hardly adds anything to the discussion so I've struck it as you requested. Jeppiz (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how this satisfies WP:BIO. Other than the Ukraine section, which is about half the article, he doesn't seem notable in any way; and even that material is questionable and not really worthy of inclusion in its own right (WP:SINGLEEVENT). François Robere (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how Lira is any more notable than any number of other vloggers on the Ukraine War, some of whom have equal or more viewers than he does. The fact that half the article appears to be some sort of strange conspiracy theory (in line with his "Zelensky is a fascist cokehead" comments), and relies on basically one source, the Daily Beast, to establish notability, makes me think that this article would be better off deleted. Almost all sources appear to be in Spanish and contain little actual information or else from small, English-language outlets that operate in countries where the main language is not English. Not coincidentally, these are places where Russian misinformation often thrives. If mainstream sources either debunk or confirm Lira's "detention" - or if the Ukrainian government chooses to comment on it, for instance - than we can revisit notability.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 🙂 The article drew thousands and thousands of views within 5 days of it's existence. This page alone lured over two thousand views and a heated dispute. That's extremely strange for an article about "some" individual not worth noticing 😉. Don't you think? Come on folks, face the reality. GizzyCatBella🍁 17:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reality is that you are asserting fame and importance and repeatedly sidestepping doing the one simple thing that would actually and easily make your case, because they always do. Fame and importance were soundly rejected by Wikipedia, for very good reasons, at Wikipedia:fame and importance almost two decades ago. You've been challenged to provide a second in-depth good, independent, biographical source documenting this person's life and works, necessary for notability but even were that not the case necessary because some people are of the view that the Daily Beast is not an adequate source for biographical information on its own without another good source to back it up. You keep avoiding that challenge, which keeps telling people that actually you do not have such a source, and that the idea here is to base a Wikipedia biography solely on the Daily Beast as the primary source of biographical information. That's very poor editorial standards that you are demonstrating. As I said, even the nominator managed to cite more in-depth sources than you have. Take heed of how Jahaza makes a case, it is very different to the zero-effort way that you have been, and it works, where your "But xe's famous!" one does not. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the idea that page views make him notable somehow is laughable but the fact is that he has almost no meaningful coverage in mainstream sources - if we removed all of the self sourced content here, we'd be left with maybe 3 sentences, none of which are particularly compelling as a case of notability. He wrote some things, he's a conspiracy theorist and gets other conspiracy theorists interested in him. That's how the internet works, not notability. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient secondary independent coverage. While this may change in the future, we don't possess a crystal ball.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Praxidicae. Particularly important to highlight that page popularity *is not* an indicator of a subject's notability, though the two are often correlated; WP:POPULARPAGE has been mentioned several times already. Lkb335 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable in home country, not notable anywhere. He did not even disappear. Yes, they received some coverage after he was presumably lost, but one event does not make one person notable, particularly this one isn't nota le for any other reason Bedivere (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to weak keep upon seeing the National Library of Chile's clippings, which suggest they may pass, although very weakly, WP:NAUTHOR. I say very weakly because I am not sure he made a significant body of work as an author, although he was, when published (many years ago), the subject of several independent periodical articles in Chile, and probably in the US but I cannot attest to that. If the only element to judge Lira's notability was their involvement in Ukraine, I would have surely stick to my delete vote. He certainly does not merit an article on that basis alone. --Bedivere (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - There are some decent sources, but for edge cases when it comes to notability when WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE are in play, it becomes tricky to decide when we should have a stand-alone article. It's admittedly on the line, with articles like DB (which, right, let's not bother citing RSP, since it provides no guidance on this subject) and El Mercurio, but I think I fall just on the delete side of things. As an aside, the articles provided above from India Today and CNN Chile are surprisingly thin/questionable. From a look at RSN archives, I see India Today is best divided between magazine content and television/web content. Not sure about the various CNN editions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this !vote has nothing to do with recent events in Ukraine, but rather that he's achieved sufficient attention as a writer in the 90's and early 2000's. The Chilean National Library has an extensive archive of about 40 Spanish clippings on his work[13]. In English, his novels also attracted some reviews in English in Kirkus[14][15], Publishers Weekly[16][17](as well as a short article about the aquistion of his first novel[18], something that was also picked up by the literary blog Grub Street and by Writer's Digest), Library Journal[19][20], Booklist[21][22], a short review in the Rocky Mountain News[23], and Magill's Book Reviews[24]. The acquisition deal also got a couple of paragraphs in this LA Times column[25]. The movie rights got the usual routine coverage in Variety and Hollywood Reporter. There's some Latin American UPI coverage of one of his films from 2005 (just an example)[26]. An entry in Guide to Literary Masters & Their Works[27].--Jahaza (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, his novels, originally published in English and Spanish, were translated into French, German, and Dutch at least as can be seen from copies still available for sale. There should be at least a few reviews in those languages, but you'd need access to the right databases.Jahaza (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may or may not have clippings, but instead of citing them you've waved at a search engine result page, which comes up "No se entregaron términos de búsqueda" for other people. Uncle G (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      See my comment below directly linking to many of them. Jahaza (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jahaza. A million-dollar advance for a novel in an editor's slush pile seems like a pretty big claim to notability. The Ukraine and YouTube stuff is probably trivial (though maintaining balance on his bio is likely to be a challenge) but as a novelist he seems notable. Guettarda (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability needs to be shown by reliable sources, not just claimed. Actually, the references Jahaza shows rather prove the lack of notability. 30 years of claiming to be a writer, and these short references, mainly (but not exclusively) from rather unknown sources. All it shows is that in the 90s he may have had some potential to become a writer, but never made it to fame. It's the equivalent of some young football player getting to do a test for a big club in his tens but never making it as a footballer. Jeppiz (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read WP:AUTHOR #3 and look at the clip file from Chile, which contains a number of substantial articles. Furthermore, Library Journal, Booklist, Publishers Weekly, and Kirkus are hardly unknown sources. These are major American publishing institutions.--Jahaza (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, of course, but it's a claim to notability that's supported by RSs. As Jahaza mentioned, there's an extensive archive of clippings from the Chilean National Library. I picked a few clippings - a profile from Las Últimas Noticias, another from La Tercera. These are national newspapers, the kind of thing we regularly accept as RSs. Similarly, Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly are not just reliable, but fairly important sources. I can't find anything about Guide to Literary Masters & Their Works but the Rosemary M. Canfield Reisman seems like an expert on this kind of things, and the work is archived by Ebscohost. Guettarda (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry Jahaza, but #3 of WP:AUTHOR is a strong argument against this individual, not for him. The point you referred to says that "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." There is no indication of that. Your list of references shows he has written a bit, but nothing to suggest his writings are remotely close to "significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Quite the opposite; 25 years has passed since he tried to become an author, and these few notices are all that can be found. That is a very strong that it is not a "well-known" body of work. As per WP:AUTHOR, this person cannot count as a notable author. Jeppiz (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • When someone has made more than a million dollars as a novelist, published three novels, had them reviewed in national periodicals, and had them translated into several languages, it's kind of odd to write that they "tried to become an author". It seems that they did become an author for a time. "25 years has passed since he tried to become an author" he doesn't have to be the subject of ongoing coverage it's sufficient that he was at one time the subject of significant coverage WP:NTEMP. The Spanish language coverage in Chile is substantial. Is it odd that this is not what's drawn attention to him now? Sure, but that doesn't mean that what he did then wasn't notable. It's kind of the opposite of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boris_Maciejovsky, which is rightfully on its way to deletion, due to their being no coverage of the person's work. In both cases, the current news hook wouldn't justify an article. Your judgment about what is significant coverage is idiosyncratic when Chilean national newspaper profiles and eight national periodical reviews in English are a few mainly unknown sources. For your argument to be credible you at least need to realize that you erred about these sources being unreliable and unknown. --Jahaza (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Jeppiz those Chilean sources are as reputable as the others shown by Jahaza. That is not a claim, it is a fact that Lira was covered by multiple independent sources back in the day. I am still not sure how his work can be considered "significant", though. I think he passes WP:NAUTHOR #3 very weakly. It's obvious he didn't continue a career as an author but that doesn't mean we should forgo these details (and sources). Bedivere (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • People, this is easy if done right. Ignore the bloody NAUTHOR criteria. This is a biography. Do the sources document the person's life and work in depth? Are they independent of the subject, and not (say) recycled press releases? Are they from people from good reputations for fact checking and accuracy? If this is so, they can be used to write this biography in accordance with our Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research content policies and the biography is possible. If not, then the 1 source with biographical information is the Daily Beast and a biography is impossible, simply because our minimum safe level of sourcing is more than 1 in-depth biographical source. I pointed out that the right thing to do is cite sources, right at the start of this discussion. No-one has yet cited any of these Chilean sources. We have an external hyperlink to a search engine that says "No se entregaron términos de búsqueda", not source citations. Uncle G (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, the link worked for me and for Guettarda, sorry it didn't work for you. I'm not sure why you couldn't just enter the name into the catalogue yourself to find the articles? Here are direct links for 17 of them:
                • I'd also note that since these articles span 1997-2005, they should help allay some "one event" fears.-- Jahaza (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You see? I told you that it's easy when done right. Always do it that way, from the get-go. It's not other people's responsibility to follow vague handwaves at search engines. It's the responsibility of the people using the search engines to read what they turn up, evaluate it, and cite it. This is how you make a case. Not with handwaves, not with (bogus) result counts (which Google and the like just make up), not with long-rejected fame and importance arguments, not with page views. It's all about sources. Find them, read them, evaluate them, cite them. These are fundamental things for Wikipedians everywhere in the encyclopaedia, and it shouldn't be like pulling teeth to get them done. The person who wanted to delete the article did this straightaway. The people who want to keep the article should do no less, but I've had to spend a week trying to get anyone to do so. Add up how long it takes you to do the search, read the sources, find a good one and cite it. In fact, read the sources that you've cited, tell us which documents this person's life as well as xyr book release, and time how long it took you. Think about how short a time that is compared to the week that this has gone without a good counterargument, that left unchecked would have led to a strong deletion argument based upon deletion policy that we do not base biographies on only 1 article in the Daily Beast. Uncle G (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @Bedivere and @Jahaza, I really don't think that that shows what you say it shows. Yes, he has been the subject of a few articles and thanks for showing that. To take an easy example, myself, I've been the subject of more articles than that, and in somewhat more notable sources. There is not WP article on me, nor do I think there should be, because I am not notable, despite more media coverage than that. There must be thousands of people with at least that amount of media coverage who are not notable in any way. Jeppiz (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You, in turn, are missing that this is after 1 in-depth source has already been given. By the nominator. These aren't the only sources. These are the further sources, covering aspects of the person that clearly the Daily Beast does not. We now have, after a week, reviews of the early works, some things about the later works, the Daily Beast documenting (well or not, a subject for discussion) the recent part of the subject's life, and other sources documenting the earlier parts of the subject's life. And the people who want to keep the article at last get to argue based in deletion policy that there's scope for expansion to an actual biography beyond what the 1 Daily Beast article would give. The challenge to that is not "I'm equally as un-famous as this person is!". That's the rejected fame and importance criteria in action, too. The challenge to that is the provenances, separateness, independence, and depths of the sources. How much of that Elle piece is actually autobiography, for example? It was Jahaza's burden to read and cite the sources, but it's now your burden to read them, too. Uncle G (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                        • We disagree there. I respect you think that these sources show notability, but my point is that that seems to be quite a stretch of WP's definition of notability. I did look at the sources. If we decide to keep the article, it would then need to reflect the sources. The Daily Beast, if you read, describes the subject as a "sleazy dating coach" and Putin-shill". Surely that needs to go into the article, if we think that the same article is what provides notability. Similarly, lots seem to be made here of his authorship (un-notable though I think it is), but almost the entire article is about his alleged adventures in Ukraine. So I still don't think notability is established (but of course respect you and others disagreeing), but at least we cannot argue for notability based on some sources, but then pass over those sources in the article. Jeppiz (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article's subject does not meet the GNG, regardless of this discussion's heat/light ratio. Miniapolis 00:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing is all from low-quality sources, WP:PRIMARY or non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources for stuff that he wrote, WP:BIASED sources, or other sources that are similarly inappropriate to write an entire article around. Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR due to the limited secondary coverage of his output, and WP:GNG due to the weak sourcing. The best source here is probably the Daily Beast article, but we can't write a BLP article using just that. --Aquillion (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The sourcing is all from low-quality sources, WP:PRIMARY or non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources for stuff that he wrote, WP:BIASED sources, or other sources that are similarly inappropriate to write an entire article around." @Aquillion this isn't true though. We have newspaper profiles and reference book entries that are secondary, independent, and unbiased. We don't have to base the article on the Daily Beast article.--Jahaza (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a YouTuber who courts controversial subjects, not a war journalist. There are dozens of vloggers who have more notoriety and subscribers. He doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We shouldn't even be looking at subscribers though. Candice Hutchings was kept with 448 thousand subscribers, while Camila Loures was deleted even with 14 million. And how many of those vloggers went missing in a war zone? If we take Lira at his word, his computer was confiscated, so how would he be expected to amass more views and subscribers now? Havradim leaf a message 04:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It burns my mind when I think about the fact that one so not notable someone generates so much attention here... 😉 - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GizzyCatBella, you have made that point around ten times in this same discussion now. You're free to hold that voew, but to repeat it time and time again starts to come off as disruptive or trying to make a WP:POINT and it's time to stop it now. We get it, you think that page views are a sign of notability (even when a minor influencer can use social media to direct views). Lots of us disagree. Nothing wrong with your opinion, but you've stated it over and over again by now, we know what you think and you don't need to keep repeat the same point. Jeppiz (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Got it. I don’t have much experience with bloggers but that’s what strikes me the most. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, FYI the article has been created in 8 languages on Wikipedia: arabic, german, spanish, italian, japanese, russian, serbian, english.--Mhorg (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mhorg - how many views has the article generated in 7 days as of today? 58,000 and counting 🙂 ? I seriously do not understand editors disputing the notability of that fella. But well, I might be mistaken. Maybe Lira is going to be shortly forgotten after all dust settles - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mhorg and @GizzyCatBella, the fact there appears to be off-wiki canvassing, with the subject himself referring his followers to his Wikipedia article, of course meands that there will be some interest. That doesn't mean there's notability. Any vlogger with even a very modest following (for vloggers) can of course temporarily direct his followers to a WP article. Jeppiz (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The ANI thread seems to be having a similar effect (though that was presumably not the intention) as well, with regular editors coming in and making comments without reading through the entire debate.--Jahaza (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wade through all the canvassing and fringe hits, and this is a WP:ONEEVENT issue, nothing more ... and frankly, a spurious event, if the subject himself is whipping up a self-promotional frenzy on his behalf off-Wiki. I'm unimpressed with that his books turn up as Google hits, or that it has been found that some of them are part of a national library's collection. The same can be said of MY published works, some of which are in the collection of the Library of Congress, and I sure as hell don't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Ravenswing 10:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid you've misunderstood the part about the Chilean National Library. It's not that his books are there (I don't even know if they are), but that they had a file of press clippings from Chilean newspapers about his work (now extensively described above).--Jahaza (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources in the article already cited seem sufficient to me to pass WP:GNG. --Jayron32 12:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete low-quality sources, press releases, etc... At best, there's a barely-there Daily Beast cite, but then we're still at WP:ONEEVENT. ValarianB (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the sources that are in the article that are the concern, but the sources that have been demonstrated to be available. That includes extensive coverage of him as a novelist in high quality Chilean newspapers as well as in reputable American periodicals.--Jahaza (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. It's a bit disrespectful to others to keep repeating this as if we hadn't seen the sources. We have. I think you did a good job finding them, and I respect that. I have read them. They do not show sufficient support for notability. They are mainly very old articles from a time when it was thought the subject might make it as an author. With hindsight, we can say categorigaclly that he didn't. The story seems to be that he got paid handsomely for a book contract in the 90s, and that's what much of the press articles are about, but the book flopped and he never had his breakthrough as an author. He certainly didn't produce the "significant body of work" that WP:AUTHOR requires. Let's put it this way: If he really had been a notable person, would it be necessary to rely on some media articles from the 90s? Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That you have seen the sources doesn't mean that other people have, especially when they make comments like saying that this is WP:ONEEVENT based on the Daily Beast article about his alleged kidnaping when there are clearly articles that have nothing to do with the kidnapping. He might still not be notable, but not because there's only one article about one event. Meanwhile, it's a discussion and we get to discuss. You've made plenty of posts of your own to the page.--Jahaza (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I echo Jeppiz; you have made your statement, and it's poor practice to seek to rebut every single Delete proponent. Like Jeppiz, I read the sources. Like Jeppiz, I find them to be casual, ephemeral mentions without any there there. Kindly accept that we, and many other editors who've made their opinions known above, do not agree with you. Ravenswing 19:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It's fine if you disagree and think that the sources don't show notability. It's confusing if someone says the only source is a Daily Beast article or when you claim that someone's argument was that his books are in the Chilean National Library, when they didn't. We write articles all the time about people who are long dead based on old articles about their work.--Jahaza (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jahaza, sorry if I was unclear, you're of course more than welcome to post (not that you need my permission). More than that, you've contributed nicely to the discussion. I merely meant that the argument of us not being aware of the sources isn't accurate. If I can correct one point above, though: we do write articles about people who are long dead, but not based on only a few very old articles. While Napoleon, Caesar, Shakespeare or Ramses are all long dead, it's no problem finding plenty of modern sources for them. The issue here is exactly that we don't find such sources for the subject. Had he been notable, there would have been at least some sources from the last five or ten years. It's exactly that absence of sources that makes me conclude he is not notable (outside his circle of followers). Jeppiz (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was leaning delete due to WP:1E, but there are two Spanish language sources "Gonzalo Lira: "Escribir no es ningún misterio"" and "El Hombre del Millon de Dolares" that appear to meet WP:GNG and mean that WP:1E does not apply. I couldn't read them, so I asked Ixtal to do so and they were kind enough to help out:
The first link is most definitely significant and would indicate notability by itself in my opinion. The pdf is from an article in El Mercurio, Chile's top newspaper (see digital reference backing this up in the Chilean national digital archive of the article). Both are interviews of the ones you'd expect of major literary figures, so while the biographical information may not be entirely independent, they to me indicate notability. The Chilean national digital library has 24 articles on him which altogether confirms that. Hope this helps, BilledMammal! — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
BilledMammal (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those articles are almost all from 1998 and are about the fact that he was paid a million dollars for a book (that since flopped). I agree, an unknown writer being paid that much is unusual, not surprising it made the news. But doesn't that mean we are basically with the situation that 24 years ago there were a few articles about him as a "the million dollar man" as he tried to make it as author. He never made it, and for 24 years there was nothing about him. This month there was some very minor coverage of him as a "sleazy dating coach" as he claimed to have been detained (not verified, btw). Am I missing something, or is that all there is? Jeppiz (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are correct regarding sources, but I would disagree with your conclusions. I believe that the argument being made here is that the subject satisfies WP:NBASIC, nothing more. Pointing to a book that might have flopped seems to be missing the forest for the trees. ... an unknown writer being paid that much is unusual, not surprising it made the news. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, that is exactly what we deal in here: The unusual, the outlandish and yes, even the controversial. Havradim leaf a message 23:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • With due respect, I think you misunderstand WP:NOTCENSORED. Nobody had objected to the article as offensive or controversial, but many have objected due to the subject not being notable. That has nothing to do with censorship. Jeppiz (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I figured earlier last week there might be some sort of international incident due to his alleged disappearance (which really is why a large amount of random media started paying him much attention), but it did not appear to materialise in major reliable sources of note - perhaps the most notable are coverage in media like RT, Sputnik (or affiliates) and other Russian state media etc that are WP:Depreciated. He's been doing the Youtube circuit since then, appearing on random Youtuber's shows, but the coverage seems to have dried up from RS. Sources, like the Chilean interferencia, when talking about his earlier literary and film works noted that despite the high dollar amount from his book deal, sales did not materialise, and his film had received bad reviews from critics. Probably why these works did not have lasting notability - coverage of these works did not last outside of the PR articles written before they came out. His economics punditry did not seem to have much written about it in RS. So then, his incel/dating coach and war coverage vlog seem to be what is left, which is covered in the dailybeast article. Cononsense (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the disclaimer, this discussion is acquiring a vote character. I would wish to make the argument that 1) notoriety does constitute notability in the sense that a user may want to seek encyclopedic knowledge on a topic, 2) keeping a page does not close the door to adequate expression of doubt or criticism, while deleting it, removes all options for expression wrt a specific topic. In consequence, I am perceiving the benefit of the doubt as pointing towards keeping, regardless of the notion of worthiness or unworthiness I might have of the subject. 79.116.93.221 (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC) — 79.116.93.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good comment IP 79.116.93.221 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "removes all options for expression wrt a specific topic". Deletion doesn't mean we don't cover a topic, it means we don't have a dedicated, stand-alone article under this title. Any information from the article can be expressed elsewhere at Wikipedia, in other relevant articles as necessary. Deletion of the article doesn't mean banning of the content; just that this would not be a topic that merits its own article. (disclosure: I voted keep above). --Jayron32 12:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"removes all options for expression wrt a specific topic" - that's not true. If Lira does something noteworthy, it can still be mentioned in other, appropriate articles. BeŻet (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...and someone will remove that mention arguing that the person isn't notable and pointing to the absence of dedicated article on Wikipedia. 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Existence of dedicated articles on Wikipedia is never used to justify inclusion of content, so this argument is moot. BeŻet (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So he was only detained by security forces. Non-event. We should close this discussion, it's gotten silly, WP:SNOW Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So many people are voting to delete because they don't like him as a person. They are framing this as "notability". He is incredibly notable. He is a published author in two languages, a film director, a notable blogger as well as YouTuber. His disappearance made international news. If that alone does not make him notable, what does? But the people who want him deleted don't like what he has said. That's the truth. That's pathetic.--Dorfpert (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC) — Dorfpert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • WP:Assume good faith. Havradim leaf a message 17:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, I'm sure you're astonished that anyone could possibly uphold a standard with which you disagree, however much embedded in policies and guidelines, without there being some sinister motive. Ravenswing 16:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He appears to be notable only due to him being only detained by Ukrainian forces. WP:ONEEVENT. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it makes much sense to do so, coverage is good and the disappearance has plenty of publicity and he has a good career as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage seems ephemeral and it all boils down to WP:ONEEVENT. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Press coverage of his million dollar book advance and recent activities in the Ukraine justify his inclusion.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 20:08, 29 April 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gonzalo_Lira_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1088194361"