Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lira (5th nomination)

Gonzalo Lira

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lira
• Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lira (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lira (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lira (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lira (5th nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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)

Taken to Afd because its been here 4 times already. Legitimately promoted from draft. May pass WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creep^Talk 17:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Delete, same as the last 4 times. "This is the 4th time in AfD, I'd salt liberally if this goes towards deletion, again. " Tired of seeing this pop up, he's not covered in any RS. Oaktree b (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'll go to bat on this one. I wholeheartedly disagree that 4 prior AfDs mean that this must be deleted again, there's nothing in the policy that states this. In fact, setting that into policy would just open it up to abuse. Reviewing the deletion discussions reveals barely any consensus and it would be inappropriate to salt based upon such a weak foundation (this isn't a Chris Chan situation with obvious harassment).

  I think your comment is a little misleading, Delete, same as the last 4 times is what you've voted for the last 4 times, not that there's been a consensus to delete 4 times. I doubt you had any bad intent by this, but its an important clarification since not everyone is going to dig through the past AfDs. We have one draftify, one keep, one WP:GS/RUSUKR delete (which says nothing about notability), and one delete a decade ago.

  Regarding WP:BIO, we have New York Daily News, The Independent, NBC, Los Angeles Times, and Business Insider just to name a few. Yes, the article could be better written, but this was more than enough for it to be passed out of the draftspace initially. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Delete as a non-notable journalist/relationship coach that only got coverage for passing away. Nothing in his career warranted an article here, passing away doesn't get you notability. There have been multiple attempts to use semi-reliable sources in each of the last 4 noms, with nothing ever found each and every time. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Passing away doesn't get you notability, show me the policy. Passing away in a notable way does, in fact, get you notability (as just one exception that could apply here). Plus it's been a perennial discussion that he is a notable author/public figure (see below and prior discussions). The only time there's been a consensus he's not notable was in 2014, which was a full decade ago and not reflective of the current article. "Nothing ever found each and every time" is blatantly false and salting is an extreme length to go. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Dying isn't notable, NOTMEMORIAL. It's been happening forever, and we aren't a necrology. We need sourced that talk about the person extensively, in reliable sources, which we don't have. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOTMEMORIAL Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. Yes, but notable murders, heavily publicized deaths, etc. have long been an exception to this (See Alan Berg as just one example from List of journalists killed in the United States). There are frankly hundreds of examples to call upon and Lira's death is somewhat controversial to say the least. Regardless, my argument is that he is notable outside of his death and the vast coverage of his death is a symptom of that notability. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  agreed, but he wasn't notable in life, so doesn't get so after dying. He's been discussed 4 times here already and was never deemed to be notable is my point. Oaktree b (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  But nowhere in the policy does it state that prior AfDs are indicative of an article's viability come a new AfD. The 1st and 4th AfDs are nonstarters since they were a decade old and a procedural matter, respectively. The 3rd AfD ruled "As there's some material in reliable sources that could plausibly grow, the argument to draftify is more persuasive than that supporting outright deletion." (similar in the 2nd AfD) which lends to the credibility that 2 years ago he was already straddling the line of notability. At this point, seeing that Fox News, South China Morning Post, and maybe the Daily Beast (Which are relatively reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources), have all run pieces on him in just the last 2 days, what's to say we can't call his detention/death notable? The aforementioned list I gave you has many similar articles that were kept but have even less coverage than Gonzalo (Meaning that Keeping this article is in line with precedent and policy). The only reason this keeps going to AfD is because it's politically contentious; given 10 years I doubt we'd find the same amount of scrutiny. Frankly, we've kept articles for less. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  in what world would Fox News be considered reliable on the subject of Russian propaganda? Elinruby (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. I was unaware of the recent 2023 downgrading until I went looking. Fox used to be a WP:CONTEXTMATTERS source, but this has since changed. This doesn't change my broader opinion since there are many better sources brought up below, but it was a good catch. Thanks!! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  not only that but debunked: [1] Tucker Carlson, you guys. Elon Musk. I can't believe I still have to point out that these are not reliable sources. The man denied the Bucha massacre for crying out loud, in the face of massive coverage by actual RS. Somebody who cares so little about facts is emphatically not a "journalist". Elinruby (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  It is not Wikipedia's job to determine someone's profession, if the sourcing calls them a journalist than that's final. We are meant to be dispassionate, not feeding our own biases; lest we perform a No true scottsman. One a personal note, I detest Lira's journalism, but it is not our place to gatekeep. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  yeah? Produce an RS that does this. An actual RS. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Here [2], it's a video produced by journalist Kim Iversen for The Hill discussing Lira, in which he's called a journalist. The New York Times called him a 'American commentator". The Independent calls him a self-described journalist. Perhaps the title 'political commentator and self-described journalist' would be a happy medium? 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 22:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  The NYT might support "wannabe propagandist". I've been laughing too 😂 hard to check the video out yet. I'd have to check on the Independent's reliability since it was sold but it is moot because they don't claim he's a journalist in the first place. Elinruby (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, the current prose in the article ... Chilean-American novelist, film director, commentator, YouTuber and life coach blogger is more than sufficient. The current article never calls him a journalist at all (only using the word journalist once to refer to someone else), which makes me wonder what the issue is with this term. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Lira, has, in my opinion been notable enough in all four cases of previous deletion to have a Wiki page. Although, in the previous four cases, there was too much vandalism for the pages to be worthy to keep. This time appears to be different. Also, Lira wrote his own Wiki page at least one of four those times, to my knowledge. In short, I disagree with your argument and believe this article should be kept. NesserWiki (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: The only really good source on this guy is a Newsweek article, which, tellingly, has the title "Who is Gonzalo Lira." The article was only released because Lira died recently, see WP:ONEEVENT and WP:RECENTISM. The article was moved to mainspace too quickly - we should have waited to see if any other mainstream sources started reporting on. As is, Lira is only really notable within the Pro-Russian corners of the internet, making finding sources on him difficult - the problems with the non-pro-Russian sources about him have been amply discussed in the previous deletion discussions and on the talk page (Daily Beast, for instance).--Ermenrich (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  This comment is confusing to me. What does the title of the article have to do with its status as an independent top level media profile? The rest of your argument stands but wouldn't every thing that's notable have gone through a phase where they weren't, and then they became notable, and spawned articles with titles like "Hey check out this thing that wasn't notable until now" or the conceptual equivalent? WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fyi Newsweek is on the Perennial Sources list as generally not reliable after 2013 when it was sold. Elinruby (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Added by scope_creep^Talk 18:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) for brevity.

Lira honestly and accurately reported on the corruption and brutality of the Zelensky regime being propped up by Biden. He was arrested, tortured and murdered by the Ukranians for his beliefs and being one of the very few to present an opposing point of view to the US State Department narrative.. And even if one disagrees with that assessment, he had a large following on YouTube and if Wiki can mention the passing of other YT 'stars' and product influencers as well as the deaths of horses, turtles, manatees, etc as done in the past, it can mention Lira's biography as well 2601:58C:C180:4E10:6586:AFB9:C125:3204 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

this is the only contribution to Wikipedia from this address Elinruby (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Being murdered for your beliefs, a perfectly common occurance, doesn't make you automatically notable. Wikipedia is not the place for a memorial article. This article needs WP:SALTED. The subject seems to be non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  People keep pushing these YouTubers as notable. The article should not have been created once let alone five times. On my phone, longer policy-citing reply to follow, but notably article seriously skews tbe facts, sources are awful for the topic area, and as someone asked already, how is misogyny a career highlight? Also, "director"???

  /me scoffs Elinruby (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Please examine his life before he became a YouTuber. Fairly significant career. He got a million dollar advance for a novel he wrote. Thriley (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  the source for the million dollars is an archived image of a paywall. It looks like a fantastic source until you click it. Elinruby (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I’m seeing it: “ If you nurse a secret novel in your sock-drawer, and with it dreams of publication and literary immortality, you should meet a beacon of hope by the name of Gonzalo Lira . Chilean-born, now living in Los Angeles, Lira is the author of the novel Counterparts , which just helped him to a $1-million (U.S.) two-book deal from Putnam in New York.” Thriley (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Huh. Do you subscribe? Are you on a phone? I've definitely gotten a paywall twice but i'll try again later.

  Elinruby (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am logged on the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Very helpful for access to an overwhelming amount of material. Highly recommend you join if you haven’t already. Thriley (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Been there done that but thank you. In return may I point out that you can get 100 free searches a month at JStor just for creating an account? However while a lot of the sources used here might be eligible for sourcing something extremely uncontroversial like, for example, the agricultural products of Oregon, this is not that. The Ukrainian war and its propaganda are controversial enough to require special handling in and of themselves. This is a BLP whose best sources call the man a liar and a shill, and that's before we start looking at a plurality of the sources, if not a majority being unreliable, and what appears to be some very organized coordination happening somewhere. Sourcing that just barely reaches an absolutely minimum standard is not what we need here and at the moment we don't even have that... That's the issue here as I see it. Elinruby (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)of

Many folk get big advances for work but don't make it as authors. There is no book reviews at all, outwith the normal trade reviews for libraries and what so, so he pass WP:NAUTHOR. Getting lots of money isn't a criteria of notability. scope_creep^Talk 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Elinruby: It seems to. The first 10 references are a joke. Anything you send me will be appreciated. He is not film director either. As far as I can determine he is directed one film and a short. That doesn't make you a film director. 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Moving this from draft was probably premature. I imagine major newspapers will cover his death eventually. If this is deleted, it should be moved back to draft. Thriley (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I see at least three sources with significant coverage: one is the mentioned 2024 Newsweek article, two from 2022 Chilean article "What is known about Gonzalo Lira and his mysterious disappearance in Ukraine", another one: [3], hence WP:RECENTISM argument is invalid. - Altenmann >talk 18:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • P.S. I have just added the fourth in-depth article from a 2023 Ukrainian source: [4], and I am pretty sure google search for Ukrainian spelling Гонсало Ліра will give more valid refs. - Altenmann >talk 18:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • P.P.S. the here is fifth in-depth 2023 article from Times of India: [5], and cited in the wp bio, too. Concluding: delete-!voters thoroughly failed to exercise due diligence when claiming lack of coverage in WP:RS. - Altenmann >talk 19:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

    Considering that Lira had a mostly western audience, what weight should we give a source like the Times of India? The article in question is mostly just a regurgitation of Tucker Carlson and also contains wonderful quotes like this The former Fox News anchor also highlighted how people in the UK have been losing lives due to hypothermia in the absence of cheap Russian energy. In what world is that reliable? Show me any other reliable source reporting on people dying of hypothermia in the UK due to a lack of cheap Russian gas.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

    That India is irrelevant is an invalid comment, I would say. Although you are right. The article meticulously says it is retelling Tucker Carlson. - Altenmann >talk 19:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

    • What on earth? Lira's audience is mostly in the West, not India. He palled around with other Western pro-Russia online personalities like Scott Ritter and "Donbas Devushka" trying to reach people in the West. That's besides the obvious problems with what you initially described as "an in-depth article" that just repeats Tucker Carlson's inane nonsense.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

      I have already agreed that it is retelling Carlson, hence I agree it is not an additional source to be counted against notability. But judging who has rights to make comments on what is none of Wikipedian's business. - Altenmann >talk 19:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

    From Perennial Sources list: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage". And if it's pro-government, it's worth pointing out that India is energy-reliant on Russia. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  • P.P.P.S, And here is the 6th 2022 Daily Beast in-depth article, How a Sleazy American Dating Coach Became a Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine.

I am done digging here. The above is more than enough for all three criteria WP:COVERAGE: depth, duration, and diversity of sources. - Altenmann >talk 19:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Problems with the Daily Beast have already been discussed on both the article talk page and I believe in previous deletion discussions. I mentioned it in my comment above.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if we remove the Daily Beast as a source for this article altogether, there are still other reliable sources covering him. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I looked in Talk:Gonzalo_Lira#"Daily_Beast"_article_not_reliable_source and I see in favor of arguments there that the accusation is false. - Altenmann >talk 19:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Then how do you propose we use a source that calls Lira a "Pro-Putin shill" without calling him those words due to WP:BLP concerns?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPPUBLIC. That he is Pro-Putin is claimed in many sources. - Altenmann >talk 20:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

BLP means Biography of LIVING Persons. Or do we have to wait until the New York Times confirms that he is dead? 2A02:A46A:2C29:1:F817:F206:1084:4987 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP also applies to the recently deceased.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that it has to be drafted again. This page is a mesh of editions and it can affect the impartiality of the matter. For example: in his career we can see that the misogyny in his videos is treated like a highlight in his career. How the hell is that a highlight and not a controversial element? Also, there's a ton to depure in the article that can be resumed in a few words without losing anything important. SupaaWiki >talk 21:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the only contribution to en

wiki from this address Elinruby (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep....independent significant coverage in reliable sources addressing the subject in depth and directly....(;) including, randomly, El País (Costa Rica)....Helsinki Times...Hora do Povo... TF1, etc, etc. (And Afds should be about deletion not cleanup)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  The El Pais piece is sourced directly to Sputnik (news agency). The Helsinki Times article is obviously not reliable for reasons I have already laid out in the article talk page ("Zelensky regime" "eight years of bombing of the civilian population of Donbas by Kyiv"). The "Horo do Povo" article is also obviously unreliable: it describes Lira uncritically as a "journalist" and contains "Kyiv regime" in its headline and again appears to rely entirely on Sputnik for a source. Other sterling journalism from this paper is a headline about "Fascist Netanyahu". TF1 appear to be reliable though, but again, its just debunking Tucker Carlson.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  ......No comment except that one can add PLENTY of other existing sources in various languages, including, again, almost at random, Diario de Yucatán, La Tercera, Hungarian Conservative, El Correo, etc, etc, etc. And I'll leave it at that if you don't mind. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  ...and I bet I can show how each one of them is also an unreliable source. "Zelenskyy regime", uses Sputnik as a source, uncritically uses Carlson, Lira himself, and Alex Rubinstein as sources of information. I can't access the final one, as it's behind a paywall, but I'm sure it would be the same.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  TF1 is probably the best source there, but it's basically fact checking other sites, so isn't strictly about Lira. Newsweek, El Pais aren't acceptable for the reason listed. Daily Beast isn't a reliable source. Unsure of the Helskinki Times article. I'm not seeing notability with these sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep ... Per above. I agree that removing this out of the draftspace was premature but not necessarily disqualifying, Mushy Yank put it better than I could. Honestly, we've kept articles for less and I remain unconvinced by Oaktree's argument that 4 prior AfDs must mean that we blacklist/salt this article in perpetuity. In addition, only 2 of the AfDs actually resulted in deletion. One is from a decade ago and one was a procedural deletion due to sanctions. There's been no consensus that this guy is not noteworthy and at this point, it feels more like beating a dead horse than anything productive. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, Several important sources such as Newsweek reported on his death. The case is controversial and has had quite an international echo. I note that the article has been translated into 11 languages[6] including English and that between 12, 13 and 14 January alone the English article made 1348 views, which denotes that there is substantial general attention.[7]--Mhorg (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  On January 15, the article had 15,500 views.[8] The article has been translated into another language, a total of 12.[9] Mhorg (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Newsweek is not a reliable source Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. With two novels published by major publishers, each of which received multiple reviews at the time, he meets WP:NAUTHOR, regardless of his later notoriety. His activity in Ukraine has certainly garnered the most in-depth coverage, and even though the reliability of some sources is contested (WP:DAILYBEAST, WP:NEWSWEEK), I believe we have enough reliable source coverage to include that part of his life as well. Here are the best sources:

Reviews of Counterparts

• Zvirin, Stephanie (1997-12-15). "Counterparts". Booklist. 94 (8) – via ProQuest. (173 words)
• Steinberg, Sybil S. "Counterparts". Publishers Weekly. 244 (47): 53 – via ProQuest. (222 words)
• Perez-Stable, Maria A (December 1997). "Counterparts". Library Journal. 122 (20): 154 – via ProQuest. (160 words)

Reviews of Acrobat

• Smith, Roger (January 2003). "Acrobat". Magill's Book Reviews – via EBSCO.
• "Acrobat". Publishers Weekly. 249 (9): 54. 2002-03-04 – via EBSCO. (282 words)
• Wall, Patrick (2002-01-03). "Acrobat". Library Journal. 127 (4) – via EBSCO.
• "Acrobat". Kirkus Reviews. 70 (3). 2002-02-01.
• Pitt, David (2002-03-01). "Acrobat". Booklist. 98 (13): 1096. (starred review)

Other reliable-source coverage

• Reisman, Rosemary M. (January 2007). "Gonzalo Lira". Guide to Literary Masters & Their Works. (460 word biography)
• Bowden, John (2023-12-12). "Meet the 'Putin propagandist' Tucker and Elon Musk want freed in Ukraine". The Independent. Retrieved 2024-01-15. (WP:INDYUK)

Jfire (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. This article seems to have been restored entirely because of the news of Lira's death. But death does not confer notability. If he was non-notable before he died, he's still non-notable afterward. And the vast majority of reporting about him seems to be from very unreliable sources. But I suppose this is a weak delete; I'm open to Jfire's argument that he's notable as an author. — Red XIV ^(talk) 23:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  > But death does not confer notability. If he was non-notable before he died, he's still non-notable afterward

  Is this actual policy? I can think of many examples of how the manner of death itself could certainly confer notability, and a political killing is high on that list. WilsonP NYC (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  you spelled pneumonia wrong. How is pneumonia" a political killing? Elinruby (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  To rebut these arguments:

  > he was non-notable before he died, he's still non-notable afterward

  The sources above (from me) and below (from Bedivere) show that he was notable (as an author) prior to his death.

  > the vast majority of reporting about him seems to be from very unreliable sources

  Notability is based on an evaluation of the reliable sources. The existence of unreliable sources, in any volume, does not imply that a subject is non-notable. Jfire (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  If he can source it yeah maaaaybe Elinruby (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. As a writer he received lots of coverage in his native Chile. The National Library has archived and released at least 24 articles related to Lira and his work, available online here [10]. That includes articles from El Mercurio, Las Últimas Noticias, La Tribuna de Los Ángeles, Qué Pasa magazine, among many others. These are all reliable sources from Chile and should suffice. And that does not count the coverage of Lira's activism, which has been called "one event" by commenters above. --Bedivere (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep - passes WP:NAUTHOR with four books, two of which received enough coverage and were published by major publishing labels. He's received plenty of coverage in Chilean media, including in major news outlets, and compounded with the recent influx of news from English media regarding his antics in Ukraine and regarding his death, this is clearly a WP:ONEEVENT situation. — Knightoftheswords 04:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Same reasons as last four times and other comments above. As User:Redxiv points out death does not confer notability - if he didn’t pass notability last four times then probably still doesn’t. As User:Ermenrich points out, the closest we have to an actual RS here is Newsweek which… isn’t an RS (though some people mistakenly think it is because it once was… like 15 years ago). The rest is junk like Sputnik or its derivatives or other obscure sources. This guy was/is well known within certain online circles but that’s not enough for an encyclopedia article. Volunteer Marek 07:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Respectfully, the National Library of Chile link above contains several articles from the 1990s, all from reliable Chilean sources, making this person pass NAUTHOR, and completely disregarding their recent years. Bedivere (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Meeting the author criteria is enough, I am convinced. The more current coverage however is also sufficient in my view. And lastly of course the manner of someone’s death can be relevant to their notability. WilsonP NYC (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep, although we need to watch out for biased sources so as to maintain NPOV. Even prior to the attention he received recently, Lira passed NAUTHOR. And contrary to what some people suggested, I think his involvement in the Ukraine situation definitely is relevant to his notability. 2804:214:86BB:1774:4E45:EE50:F8E0:C061 (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Editor is a WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 14:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedians famously have very low threshhold for GNG and tend to confuse a lot of sources as enough, when they often don't look at the quality of those sources. There's also clear confusion above, where thinking notability is derived. Just because his novels or films were reviewed is not proof the author himself is notable. And the paltry reviews are not enough to justify even articles on the novels. The novels and author are separate subjects. As an author, youtuber, and filmmaker he's a nobody who had little impact or notice. He would potentially be notable for the events leading to arrest and death. The poor sourcing of the article is a reflection to how few actual honest to goodness news sources have covered him. Business Insider, The Daily Beast, Salon, are very fluffy internet focused sites that I do everything to avoid in proper articles. Newsweek was once a solid source like 20 years ago, but in the internet age has degraded to being declared outright unreliable. A brief notice in NBC News piece is the only proper source in the entire article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

he's also a cowboy, an astronaut and a ballerina.<g> Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think he passes WP:NAUTHOR. The book reviews aren't particularly decent. There is no literary journals or critical theory journals. There is nothing in contemporary magazines where you expect to find a good reviews. Kirkus isn't something you would normally use, Publishers weekly is a industry trade journal and effectively non-rs for the most part in this context, its never used as a review source. The Library journal is an industry journal, again. Mcgill, I'm not sure about but not get the right signals from it. It looks like a trade journal. Booklist is the same. Its not rs. scope_creep^Talk 14:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete - not much has changed since the last vote. He is still not notable enough, and his death did not make him more notable. Bear in mind that this is the 5th nomination, and this article was deleted every time. BeŻet (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"this is the 5th nomination, and this article was deleted every time" is not accurate. Only one of the prior nominations closed as a delete on notability grounds: the first one in 2014. The second closed as "no consensus", the third closed as "draftify" and the closer noted "some material in reliable sources that could plausibly grow", and the fourth was a procedural delete on non-notability grounds. So the only time the article has been deleted for lack of notability was ten years ago, prior to Lira's activity in Ukraine, in an AFD that did not locate nor discuss the English and Spanish language coverage of Lira's writing career. Consensus can change. Jfire (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not accurate. All the votes following the first when happened after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Lack of notability was clearly established during the third vote ("draftify" simply means to delete the article, move it to a draft and wait for a change in notability). The fourth vote was "delete" because nothing has been changed. I still believe that he is not notable. BeŻet (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

aw shucks somebody has turned up a passing mention of him on a New York Times list of ridiculous propaganda claims, and he got a whole paragraph! Then there is the archived image of a Globe and Mail paywall referencing the million dollars; that's good to go, right? Seriously, that's with only a very cursory click or two. Don't let me get started on a full-scale source verification here, none of us has time for that and I already have a backlog in source verification... Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep - Story was reported on in Newsweek, Fox News and the New York Post, his case has been addressed at State Department briefings and by the Russian foreign minister multiple times, and by other notable (if not always reliable) commentators, he was mention in multiple other outlets before his arrest and death. Can't see how this doesn't pass WP:GNG JSwift49 14:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Newsweek, Fox News, and New York Post, are all crap sources and I try to remove them from any articles I find. This article is just piling crap tabloid and internet sources on top of each other. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The New York Post is not an acceptable source, nor is Newsweek or Fox News [11]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Chilean newspapers, The Bulwark, The Independent, Business Insider, New York Daily News, Kyiv Post, Europa Press etc. JSwift49 15:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

NYT, LA Times, NBC, TF1... If we want to remove those sources you mentioned we can have a discussion about that, but he is mentioned in many in which there is no dispute of reliability, so how does this warrant a deletion of the article? JSwift49 16:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

JSwift49, I was in the other discussion.

These are biased pro-Ukrainian editors, who are sealioning this either discussion to waste your time. They do not like that Lira's death makes the Ukrainian government look bad.

They literally cite YouTube videos by this Jake Broe guy who had a spat with Lira on Twatter over e-celeb crap.

I hate to deflect but I don't see any of these editors looking at the Sarah Ashton-Cirillo's (related to GL Ukraine situation) Wikipedia article which is all just tabloid LGBT magazines, Fox News Las Vegas, The Daily Beast, and Twatter...but I don't think she should have her article deleted either.

Entire discussion is ridiculous... Thegreatmuffinman (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This account is an WP:SPA.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I do agree a good chunk of sources were sourced from Russia/unreliable outlets so should have been removed, but yeah there clearly are enough reliable sources so the article should be at most fixed not deleted. We should not apply a higher standard to this article than the vast majority of others. JSwift49 18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: mIght have a pass at AUTHOR, but the reviews are flimsy and we'd need more than those for sourcing. I still don't think we have enough in RS for notability, Daily Beast and Newsweek are depreciated. TF1 isn't strictly about Lira. Rest are sourced to Sputnik or in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  I found a WIRED article that stated one of his novels' movie rights had been bought by Miramax, not sure if helps but put it in. JSwift49 17:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Are they deprecated? They both seem to be labeled "with additional considerations" (Newsweek reliable on "on a case-by-case basis" post-2013, the Daily Beast for being biased towards left-wing positions) on the list. Neither are listed as deprecated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, they are not deprecated. WP:DAILYBEAST is "no consensus", and WP:NEWSWEEK is "evaluate on a case-by-case basis". Jfire (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• He certainly does not pass WP:AUTHOR: no, he is not regarded as an important figure by his peers or successors; his books being reviewed is not really a proof. However, he might pass our general criteria as someone who appears in multiple sources. But most of these sources are weak, as noted, for example, by Oaktree just above and some others. He also does not appear as anyone of significance other than promoting a ridiculous misinformation and being arrested. And the history of creation and deletion of the previous versions of this page seems to indicate at promotion. I am leaning toward delete, although have no strong opinion (he does appear in multiple sources after all). My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I think a source review is needed here at least for the first block which may settle it. I'll do it tommorrow. scope_creep^Talk 16:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Simply listing the sources, as some people do above on this page, is not enough. One should check what they say about the subject. For example, I noticed a NYT article. It says "Alex Jones, the American conspiracy theorist who often spreads lies on his Infowars platform, during his online show on Monday suggested that Ukraine would detonate a dirty bomb within its borders and then blame Russia as “a pretext to bring NATO fully into the conflict” and start World War III. “My analysis is, about 90 percent at this point, that there’s going to be full-on public war with Russia, and at least a tactical nuclear war in Europe,” ... And on YouTube, Gonzalo Lira, an American commentator who lives in Ukraine, said that “all the evidence” pointed to a “deliberate provocation that is being staged by the Americans.”. Such mention does count as a citation of Lira, but it says little of substance beyond noticing that Lira repeated/supported the claim by Alex Jones who is indeed a notable conspiracy theorist. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Gonzalo is notable person, his view were supressed and yet his views reached tens of millions worldwide. Some parts of the article do not base the claim on primary sources. Reviewing the telegram and subsequent youtube does not prove doxxing of other journalist during the initial phases of invasion of Russian forces. Also the claim that he did sent the positions of the troops to tiktok is not that easy to believe as he did not have tiktok channel and there is no evidence of that, there are points in the article that are not provable altough the fact that he was prosecuted in the ukraine remains important. For definition of doxxing I am using maybe going through all the evidence of the ideas of the author he presented and making the article more detailed would certainly improve the quality and lower the biased citations that stand contrary to the alredy established definition on wikipedia e.g. the doxing article Krypto Švejk (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Note the recent Arbcom request for modification of the sourcing expectations for the Antisemitism in Poland topic area. I advocated extending it to the Holocaust in Lithuania as they did but also to eastern Europe in general, which seemed to get some support, except that it's difficult to enunciate a standard for the war in Ukraine in particular beyond saying (me) that it is a HUGE problem. For which this article is a poster child. Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Lira is notable by the sheer amount of literature about his passing, though he was quite famous even before. There are many newspaper publications about him from 2022 and earlier. Tiphareth (talk) Tiphareth (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

References

• This account is an WP:SPA.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, My account is not single purpose. I am on wikipedia for more than 10 years. I did only contribute here less than on my local wikipedia, but this is not truth. rather your comment is against wikipedia rules as your comment is sort of personal attack. please restrain from further rules violations Krypto Švejk (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but having a single edit in 2016 does not keep you from being an SPA.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  I dont have single edit, I also dont violate the general test. Please make yourself familiar with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account Krypto Švejk (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Before today, yes you did only have a single edit. Then you suddenly reappeared after eight years to vote in this AFD.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speci%C3%A1ln%C3%AD:P%C5%99%C3%ADsp%C4%9Bvky/Krypto_%C5%A0vejk for reference. I already said that I am originaly a local account holder and you did not verify it and falsely claimed that I have only one contribution. And then you used false tense and again falsely claimed nonsense. I am beginning to think your account is for trolling purposes Krypto Švejk (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  You can think that, but the fact is you have basically zero activity on en.Wiki besides mysteriously showing up to vote in this AFD. And that link shows you basically have no real activity in Cz.Wiki until you started editing Lira this year as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. There are at least three reliable sources that discuss him in specific in depth. He wasn't notable in 2014, he is now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Lira was featured on Tass which referenced Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk. Not a reliable source but the Daily Beast wrote an article entitled,

How a Sleazy American Dating Coach Became a Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine." There is controversy about Lira going way back to alleged sexual predation at Dartmouth. Lira is whatever you want him to be depending on your worldview. He is a journalist to some, a fraudster, an opportunist, a propagandist, an economist, a writer, film maker, a narcissistic opportunist, a pro-Russian shill, or a hero. How do you write an article about this human chameleon in a way that is accurate and balanced. 73.27.57.206 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I appreciate all the good faith feedback and discussion here, I’ve come to agree the original article needed improvement and my submitting it was premature. However I and other editors have now worked on it quite a bit so I’d like to request any decision be taken with these changes in mind. I more than ever believe the article adequately demonstrates notability (has a good number of reliable sources, and tons of articles on Wikipedia are of far less significant people), so it should not be deleted, especially given how different the previous four AfD submissions were. JSwift49 03:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This editor is a WP:SPA, who has no understanding of the WP policies. scope_creepTalk 01:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Dick. 73.27.57.206 (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC) And you've just proven the point, we don't name call here please. Oaktree b (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The request for deletion is clearly a politically-motivated attempt to "memory-hole" relevant historical events and a public figure, however minor or unpopular, who has actively contributed in SIGNIFICANT measure to reporting and discussion of events leading up to and during the Ukrainian/Russian conflict from 2014-2023. The fact that he was a dissenting voice outside the MSM makes his reporting more relevant, not less so. Moreover, as the manner of his incarceration and death, foretold by Lira himself at the end of July, 2023, possibly or even likely involves crimes and human rights violations by both Ukrainian and US authorities, the request to delete, particularly at this time, is a clear attempt to hide the circumstances of his death and to censor dissent; to deny the public ready access to significant factual historical information. The page should not only be retained, but expanded, improved and ELEVATED in significance, at least until the Ukrainian conflict is settled. Whoever requested deletion, particularly at this moment when the circumstances of his death are still an active topic of discussion in the public realm, should probably have their own significance and moral integrity questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:10AE:10:9E66:15A7:B596:232B:39FB (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a WP:SPA scope_creep^Talk 08:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

'Single purpose account' everyone knows what you are doing now. You are not arguing in good faith and cannot address any of the points as your sealioning trolling has been called out.

Fact is, you don't need an account to edit a lot of Wikipedia articles.

Where is your scrutiny towards the sources of the Ashton-Cirollo article?

Like I said already that article is all Daily Beast, Twatter, Fox News Las Vegas, and LGBT tabloid magazines. Their article still should not be deleted, but I don't see the usual suspects on here trying to brigade delete this article doing the same there...

Also, your opinion doesn't matter if you think GL is distasteful, many people find Scott Ritter distasteful (convicted sex offender), does that mean that they should not have a Wikipedia article?

Cause if that is the case then theirs should be deleted too. Fact is, are they notable? Yes, people can be notable by being infamous. Thegreatmuffinman (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC) — Thegreatmuffinman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is a WP:SPA. Seems to be off-wiki canvassing. scope_creep^Talk 12:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

As a fellow editor, it is important to use non-confrontational wording in discussions, as hostile wording rarely leads to resolution. My recommendation is to edit your comment for tone. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing confrontational about that? SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete he hasn't been notable before, and I don't really see anything here which pushes over the threshold. Don't see the WP:NAUTHOR, and the whole thing seems fringe and WP:NOTNEWS. Would also salt. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think he was notable before, as his first books received significant coverage in Chile as shown above Bedivere (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry but I completely agree with scope_creep here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I don't intend to participate in the vote, as I'm not an editor, just a Wiki reader from Germany (not Russia, lol). My understanding is that Gonzalo Lira was arrested and prosecuted for voicing political views that were prohibited by the Ukrainian state and then died while being imprisoned. That in itself makes this a matter of public interest in my personal view, as freedom of expression is generally protected in European countries and citizens normally cannot be arrested or imprisoned for voicing political views, whether true or false. 2A01:C23:8CAA:900:4CCC:1BE:F5EF:7A5C (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is the only post to Wikipedia from this address Elinruby (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: the lack of statements from the White House about the survival or death of Lira, shows that something strange has happened to the journalist, making this character more interesting in the encyclopedias and in this one it also has numerous sources and a great development encyclopedic my opinion stay. 57ntaledane9 (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  This account is an WP:SPA. Also none of the reasons mentioned have anything to do with WP:NOTABILITY.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ermenrich I am not an account for a particular purpose. I was the one who created the article in simple English and who is having a general query. You can leave your opinions https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalo_Lira# My decision is that it remains with reliable sources and is an article that has other websites such as German, Portuguese and Arabic. 57ntaledane9 (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: per Jfire. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep feel free to debate the content (elsewhere), but the sourcing presented here satisfies the WP:GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. He was a relevant figure in the Ukraine-Russia war since the beginning in 2022 and there are many credible news articles on him regarding this conflict. If Gonzalo Lira does not belong on wikipedia, then why are even more irrelevant people like Vladlen Tatarsky not merged with the event page (Assassination of Vladlen Tatarsky), but have their own separate personal pages instead? By this logic many pages must be removed. YitzhakNat (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• it is honestly a little concerning to read this discussion, as someone who loves wikipedia and sees it as in invaluable resource that sincerely aims for neutrality. this lira guy is clearly reprehensible, but the following and interest he generated over a long period justifies an article here. furthermore, the article could be quite a bit better, but was still valuable for what wilipedia is always valuable for to me - an easily readable overview of a subject with plenty of links to verify and go deeper. i am not sure what would make this article a nominee for deletion instead of just edits without thinking a lot of the editors are making disingenuous arguments because they simply find the subject matter distasteful. keep wiki neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.224.169.134 (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Any page can be nominated for deletion, please nominate those you feel aren't at notability. The sooner we can clean out non-notable articles on wiki, the better. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. There's a sort amount of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and whataboutism in the arguments of not just this keep vote.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would strongly support deleting or at least merging Vladlen Tatarsky also, anyone who starts an AfD please ping me. I have a couple of other names as well. Elinruby (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: The other users have listed a lot of reliable sources. I think it easily passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Other than the sources listed, it was reported in mainstream media in Serbia ([12], [13], [14]), Hungary - which is a member of NATO ([15], [16]) and Romania - another NATO member ([17]). StjepanHR (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Source analysis

• Comment Lets examine the two blocks of sources + plus the above sources + chilean newspaper list on Lira to settle this once and for all.

Reference Number	URL	Independent	Reliable	Significant	WP:GNG	Notes
1	[18]	Yes	No	No	No	Its likely non-rs.
2	[19]	No	Yes	No	No	WP:PRIMARY. Self-published opinion piece.
3	[20]	Yes	Yes	No	No	Non-RS. Database generated profile.
4	[21]	No	Yes	No	No	It is an interview. WP:PRIMARY.
5	[22]	Yes	Yes	No	No	Its a passing mention, in reaction to another story.
6	[23]	Yes	Yes	No	No	Its a quote, a passing mention.
7	[24]	Yes	No	No	No	Seems to be some question of propagating a lie about a non-existant video. So article is not a reliable source, even though Daily Beast is generally considered to be reliable.
8	[25]	Yes	Yes	No	No	Single para is passing mention.
9	[26]	Yes	No	No	No	Short para, taken from Twitter. Its non-rs.
10	[27]	No	No	No	No	Report taken a podcast. Staff report, no byline Profile effectively. Non-RS.
11	[28]	Yes	No	No	No	National news agency of Ukraine. Article built from Twitter and Youtube. "The material was prepared by the editorial office of the Center for Strategic Communications and Information Security". No byline. Likely Non-rs
12	[29]	Yes
13	[30]	No	No	No	No	Uses Twitter as a source to build the article. Bylined article "Who Is Gonzalo Lira?"
14	[31]	Yes	Yes	No	No	Its a routine annoucement of death and only 6 lines long. Probably satisfies WP:V for his death but not a particularly decent ref.
15	[32]	Yes	Yes	No	No	Same press-release as a reference 14, confirming he died. It is 8 lines. There is no analysis, in fact there is nothing except he died of pneumonia. Its not significant.
16	[33]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	These library logins dialogs per consensus are considered non-rs as they fail WP:V. Article about his book advance. Here it is: [34]
17	[35]	Yes	Yes	No	No	Same death annoucement as Ref 15. Same ref as 14
18		Yes	Yes			A recent RFC found it to be a paper of record. So reliable.
19	[36]	Yes	Yes	No	No	Two paragraphs, not significant.
20	[37]	No	No	No	No	Event listing for bookstore discussion. Its is non-rs.
21	[38]	Yes	Yes	No	No	Incididental para with name mention (passing mention) about his book "Counterparts" getting picked up. Context on Stacy Creamer and Kathleen J. Reichs. Two para's. Satisfies WP:V.
22	[39]	Yes	No	No	No	Event listing again, for some reason. Completely non-rs. Why is that even in the article?
23	[40]	Yes

scope_creepTalk 12:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment German reader here again, I find this evaluation a bit odd.

1. "Its likely non-rs." Wouldn't a reason here be warranted? Why is it "likely non-rs"?

5. "Its a passing mention, in reaction to another story." The name "Lira" is mentioned 8 times throughout the article in 7 different paragraphs. GPT-3.5 summarizes the article as follows: "Gonzalo Lira's blog post on Business Insider accused Paul Krugman of suggesting war as a fiscal solution to the economy, which was widely criticized and labeled as "totally batshit insane" by economists. Business Insider eventually pulled the post, acknowledging that it distorted Krugman's actual stance. Krugman responded, reaffirming his Keynesian position on government spending. The incident tarnished both Lira and Business Insider's reputation." Presenting this as a "passing mention" seems quite inaccurate.

7. "Seems to be some question of propagating a lie about a non-existant video." This is a 4,000 words article about Lira. GPT-3.5 summary: "Gonzalo Lira, a former manosphere YouTuber known as Coach Red Pill, has shifted his content from relationship advice to pro-Russian commentary on the Ukraine conflict. Presenting himself as an objective observer, Lira makes wild claims against Ukrainian President Zelensky, supports Russian narratives, and spreads debunked conspiracy theories. Despite gaining followers, experts dismiss his views as nonsense, and some suspect he may be indirectly compensated by Russia. Lira's transformation aligns with broader trends in the manosphere's entanglement with far-right networks and their alignment with pro-Russian sentiments. Critics suggest his pivot may be driven by a desire to remain relevant amid growing deplatforming concerns in the manosphere." Claiming the text is merely about "a non-existant video" seems highly inaccurate.

8. "Single para is passing mention." He's mentioned in two paragraphs, not one.

9. "Short para, taken from Twitter. Its non-rs." The text consists of 5 paragraphs. The name "Lira" is mentioned 5 times in 4 paragraphs and 10 times in total.

11. "Article built from Twitter and Youtube." The first paragraph is about Tucker Carlson and his claims about Lira. So this statement seems already inaccurate.

I know we are supposed to "assume good faith", but these distortions appear a little too consistent and severe to be accidental misreadings. So I can only assume some kind of agenda at work here. 2A01:C23:9115:E200:74D2:8AB5:E1C:AC12 (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This editor is a WP:SPA scope_creep^Talk 16:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning what xyz person said in a blog post doesn't help establish notability. Even being mentioned in TWO paragraphs isn't helping. Please don't use ChatGPT to summarize articles either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"Mentioning what xyz person said in a blog post doesn't help establish notability."

I never claimed that it did. Pointing out that Lira is mentioned 8 times in 7 different paragraphs and is at the subject's center contradicts the claim of "a passing mention".

"Even being mentioned in TWO paragraphs isn't helping."

I never claimed that it helps establishing notability. Pointing out that Lira is mentioned in two paragraphs contradicts the claim that he is mentioned in one paragraph. I intended to correct a false claim, indicating a general pattern of distortion.

"Please don't use ChatGPT to summarize articles either."

It provides an approximate overview of a text's content by a neutral third party. If you are aware of evidence showing that GPT-3.5 is generally less reliable than humans in generating summaries, please provide references to the relevant scientific literature. 2A01:C22:9142:6A00:C26:1006:4237:8B7 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm discussing the sources. If they don't establish notability, there is no point discussing them. Chat GPT is an unreliable source per wikipedia. So none of the sources discussed are useful, no matter how many times they mention Lira is the conclusion to be drawn. If you've so much as agreed the sources don't help notability, I can't see what the issue is. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if it's a non-passing mention, the source isn't reliable, so it shouldn't matter how it is used. I can't see that any of these sources discussed are helpful in proving notability here to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

My criticism is that the source analysis misrepresents the sources. For example, claiming that reference number 5 (Salon) constitutes "a passing mention" seems false, considering that Lira is mentioned 8 times in 7 paragraphs and is at the center of the subject. This seems also the case for reference number 7 (The Daily Beast). I'm not sure how I can make this clearer. As for the sources' reliability, I am reading here that "there is no consensus on the reliability of Salon" and that "there is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast." According to the source analysis the "Daily Beast is generally considered to be reliable." 2A01:C22:9142:6A00:C26:1006:4237:8B7 (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep, Some things about your evaluation don't make sense to me:

4: While the article is an interview, it also contains five paragraphs of the reporter writing about Lira before the interview itself. So that is secondary coverage as well as primary. Major Chilean newspaper, WP:GNG.

5: The article is about Lira's op-ed and the fallout from it, not merely a 'passing mention'. Salon isn't considered unreliable according to the "Perennial source" list. Why couldn't it contribute to WP:GNG?

7: I agree with the above commenter, reducing it to be about a 'non-existing video' question is not a summary of the article's contents, the article is much broader in scope. Why not WP:GNG?

9: The article is not merely "sourced from Twitter". It is sourced from the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in which they state that Lira is missing and that they are searching for him, article also states relatives haven't spoken to him (which wasn't from Twitter), the only Twitter sourcing is when they describe Lira's Twitter posts. Given it's a major independent Chilean newspaper, WP:GNG.

Also

11: I understand that it's Ukrainian state news and the Center for Strategic Communications and Information Security wrote their rationale for detaining Lira, but why is that unreliable for merely ascertaining what that rationale was?

13: When Twitter is mentioned in the Newsweek article, it is not taken as fact but rather it reports what people posted on Twitter in context. I'd agree with you if the article was taking what was posted on Twitter as fact, but by your standard, how could reliable sources discuss anything people put on Twitter?

There are also many other sources that in my opinion clearly count towards WP:GNG, including:

• Dedicated author profile in El Mercurio, Chile's newspaper of record [41]
• Dedicated story (and shorter follow-up) in The Independent [42][43]
• Dedicated story in Business Insider [44]
• Dedicated story in New York Daily News [45]
• Dedicated story in SwissInfo originated by EFE [46]
• Focused story in TF1 (French TV) [47]
• Story about death in The Daily Beast [48]
• Book reviews in the LA Times, Globe and Mail, Orlando Sentinel etc. (Even if other books are reviewed alongside, these are real, non-trivial reviews. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it [does not need to be the main topic] of the source material.")

There has also been substantial Ukrainian media coverage, including The New Voice of Ukraine [49][50][51][52] and KyivPost [53], paragraphs in NBC/NYT articles, or dedicated coverage in FOX News, The Bulwark, Europa Press, The Week, The Times of India, Berliner Zeitung, though even if we want to exclude or qualify some or all of these sources in the article, the list above should more than suffice for keeping the article on Wikipedia. JSwift49 17:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

you can't just say there are sources. If there are produce them Elinruby (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

All mentioned are in the article and easily searchable. Regardless the ones I didn't link aren't integral to WP:GNG JSwift49 23:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Source table of these six sources

I've looked at the 6 sources presented above, one good one, rest are partials for helping notability here, I still don't see GNG being met. No changes in my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

i would argue the Independent article is reasonably in-depth and doesn't just discuss the Tweets, it discusses the general situation including implications for the White House, and Business Insider also says a lot more. Besides, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Adding some:

NY Daily News: [54]

La Tercera (major Chile newspaper): [55][56][57] (last link should be included as there are several paragraphs written about him before the interview)

More Daily Beast coverage: [58][59]

Europa Press: [60]

New Voice of Ukraine: [61][62][63]

CNN Chile: [64]

KyivPost: [65]

Mala Espina: [66]

Hill TV: [67] (reliable source but video is opinion-y, not sure if this counts as a contributor/how much editorial oversight since these were permanent hosts of the 'Rising' show)

The Bulwark: [68][69] (same thing as Hill, the source is opinion, not sure how much oversight, though I do think it contributes to notability)

I think this combined with all the book reviews, plus the shorter mentions of significance in NBC, NYT, United Press International etc. satisfies it just fine. I could even include TASS' story on Maria Zakharova's response to Lira's death since TASS is considered reliable for quotes from Russian politicians. [70] JSwift49 00:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
El Mercurio [71]	newspaper of record, story with byline	does not appear to be unreliable in 1996 when article was published	Full story about the author, with byline	✔ Yes
The Independent [72]	article has byline	considered a RS	~ half page, mostly about the twitter exchanges	~ Partial
Business Insider [73]	has a byline	~ no consensus on reliability of the source	~ discusses the twitter exchange	~ Partial
EFE vis Swissinfo [74]	EFE is along the lines of AP	no bylines, but do have author's initials at the bottom	~ perhaps 6 paragraphs about Lira, partially helping	~ Partial
TF1 [75]	French news network, story has byline	generally considered reliable	~ talks about his detention and points out falsehoods in the news stories	~ Partial
Daily Beast [76]	has byline	~ average source per RS guidelines	~ short article, talks aobut his death	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The problem with posting lots of these links in many of them either are of significant e.g. death notices, or only generarted because of the interest of Musk and Carlson. Other like Daily Beast are non-rs. Business Insider is absolute junk, its a trade journal and the reason they're printing is because of Musk. Nothing else and its affiliate news. You would never use for a WP:BLP. Its not dedicated stories. They are copied from elsewhere. We will go through them all. scope_creep^Talk 18:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

An issue here is it seems to me you misrepresented many of the sources you did review.

Furthermore Daily Beast is described as 'no consensus', you yourself say above in your review "Daily Beast is generally considered to be reliable", and the Business Insider article in fact wasn't copied from elsewhere. Both of those articles as well as the other links are in fact stories centered around Lira. JSwift49 18:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately billionaires and their interests often determine what gets covered in the media. It happens even at the best news organizations. Thriley (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources Yahoo! News is considered a reliable source. They have two articles about him: https://news.yahoo.com/sbu-responds-musks-comments-arrest-153200422.html https://news.yahoo.com/pro-russian-blogger-gonzalo-lira-170300542.html Fox News is listed as a reliable source for some things. https://www.foxnews.com/world/american-filmmaker-arrested-jailed-spreading-pro-russia-propaganda-dies-ukrainian-prison The New York Times and Forbes only briefly mention him. The Daily Beast is listed as no consensus if its reliable or not. https://www.thedailybeast.com/american-dating-coach-turned-blogger-gonzalo-lira-dies-in-ukraine They give significant coverage to him. The Independent is considered a reliable source so this counts towards the general notability guidelines being met for him. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gonzalo-lira-elon-musk-tucker-ukraine-putin-b2462324.html The South China Morning Post is considered a reliable source. https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3248944/some-journalists-lives-are-worth-more-others So enough coverage to convince me of his notability. Dream Focus 17:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If this is the WP:ARS here to do a pile on like you have done in the past, I will revert and take the whole the lot of you to WP:ANI. scope_creep^Talk 17:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Assume good faith and comment not on a person but their sources found. No one has ever done a "pile". Sometimes people show up and find sources and comment on them, sometimes not. Dream Focus 18:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yea right. We will see if any other of the ARS cronies turn up. scope_creep^Talk 18:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Editors from ARS would probably be more helpful than IPs right now. Thriley (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Calm down, it's just an AfD. You're not helping your case by being openly hostile. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You didn't go through all that hassle last year so please curb the advice, until you know what your talking about. scope_creep^Talk 19:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

SCMP is an opinion piece, so not helpful in determining reliability. I've explained the rest already, so no need to go over them again. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I'll finish the source analysis on Saturday. There is other problems with this article which haven't been addressed in this Afd, which have now just came to light. scope_creep^Talk 19:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sourcing comment: Many of the editors above seem completely unfamiliar with the concept of a reliable source: Twitter and cough TASS are never reliable ever, Newsweek has not been reliable since 2013, and the list of perennial sources (basically an FAQ, see WP:RSN) says Business Insider might be reliable for popular culture, which would not include making a dating coach out to be Nelson Mandela. The Cypriot news source looks sketchy also. Elinruby (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've thrown one together (see above), it helps as it's a concise view, but still doesn't change my opinion, meaning I'm still not seeing notability as having been met here for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  There is perhaps a story about his death while in detention, but there isn't much strictly about the event, and what we have is mostly fact-checking of the narrative around him. Most are circular references about the person. I can't see notability at this time, I don't think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think it important to include all the reviews of his work from the 90s and 2000s- they contribute towards GNG. Thriley (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  they do, but no one has put forward enough extensive and RS to build an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am not sure I follow. The reviews are now in the article. Thriley (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

They are not valid as sources for a review ref. They are trade journals that produce a profile for every book that comes out, that starts to sell. They are junk refs and will need come out. Putting them in, when they are known to be crap sources is really poor editing behaviour. That is disruptive editing. They are never used to prove WP:NAUTHOR, ever. scope_creep^Talk 23:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean Kirkus and Publishers weekly? I use them all the time. Perfectly acceptable sources to demonstrate he was major author. They aren’t paid promotion- I’ve seen plenty of negative PW reviews. There’s also other reviews too in major newspapers. Thriley (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I never use publishers weekly. Its not reliable and never has been. The Kirkus ref is a better but there is no author information and that makes it problematic. It is another indication of lack of presence. WP:THREE genuine reviews would do it? scope_creep^Talk 23:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Aside from PW and Kirkus, there’s newspaper reviews. Thriley (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:THREE is an essay and the guy who created it said people kept misusing it. His personal essay says he isn't going to read through a dozen sources, three are enough to convince him.

For notability, two is enough. WP:GNG clearly states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Multiple means more than one, so two is fine.

Publishers Weekly has always been a reliable source. I have placed it in many articles over the years. all past discussions about it that I am aware of, have determined it counts as a reliable source. They are often quoted along with other reliable sources at Amazon, Apple [77], and other places that sell the books, or even libraries that mention them [78]. They are also found inside the book or on the cover quoted with other notable reviewers. [79]

You were called out by another editor for being "openly hostile" in your interactions with me above, then you moved a perfectly acceptable article I created for a book Gonzalo Lira wrote, into draft space. draft:Counterparts_(novel) Will someone else look it over and tell me if you believe it should've been moved there? The article clearly states the guy was given a million dollar advance for the book, and list two reliable sources reviewing it. Dream Focus 01:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Concerning Counterparts. Moved back to Main. Added 3 sources, identified by User:Ficaia below. Best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment A number of sourcing criticms are rooted in assertions around editorial intent. This is irrelevant. We can only assess the actual text of a source. Furthermore, if, for example, the New York Times reports on a debate on Twitter/X or postings to YouTube, just because we do not accept those inital sources as reliable due to their self-publishing status, there is no "fruit of the poison tree" principle that per se discounts the NYT's coverage of those postings. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Given the number of reliable sources covering both him and his work, he passes general notability guidelines with flying colors. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep There seems to be substantial news coverage: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, as pointed out by others. There were also reviews of his first novel in 1998: 1, 2, 3. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep 40,000 readers have visited this biography in the last 30 days. I think it's good that such people have an encylopedic, neutral, reliable source of information. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  The article was made at 21:38, 14 January 2024‎. 47,325 views so far. Five days not thirty, so even more impressive. Dream Focus 19:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This man is notable historically, not just a news cycle. He is Featured on Google, YouTube, and major news sources, and not for just one event but a series of instances. Some of the early "Delete" pushers appear to be POV biased (that just came here to push against this article rather than a legitimately neutral Wikipedia purpose). I myself found out about this AFD after searching for this article, not before. I didn't even know it was up for "Deletion".