Jump to content

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- 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]

  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
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"