Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lira (3rd nomination)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 Draftify. There is consensus here, albeit weak, that an article in mainspace isn't suitable at the moment. As there's some material in reliable sources that could plausibly grow, the argument to draftify is more persuasive than that supporting outright deletion. Those arguing to keep, both here and at the previous AfD, have spammed a lot of links, but have not demonstrated that any of them constitute substantive coverage. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira

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

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

This article has been nominated for deletion twice before: first (deleted), second (no consensus). The closer's suggestion after the second nomination was to revisit the discussion "when [Lira is] no longer in the news". This third nomination is taking place three months after the last one. Gonzalo Lira gained very brief prominence during the conflict in Ukraine because of his short disappearance, which was due to an alleged detention by the SBU (for which no evidence was ever produced). Since then, nothing noteworthy has happened, and is unlikely to happen. Other than that, Lira is just known for a couple poorly received films and a few books. I do not think it is WP:DUE to have an article about Lira. His views are fringe, and he's essentially just a vlogger. During the previous discussion, there was a lot of traffic as a result of canvassing, which I hope we can avoid this time round. BeŻet (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as last time, non-notable "journalist". Sources are mentions with no sig cov. He's mentioned in an NBC News article that was published a month ago, but only gets a few lines [1], and that's about the best source that's come up since last AfD. Still nothing worthwhile. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note
Nominated by the same user (BeŻet) as the last time around April 21, 2022 - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note repeated attempts [2], [3], [4] to place notability tag (by the same user) almost instantly after the last unsuccessful nomination.

@BeŻet I understand your strong view about the notability of Lira but I don't think it's acceptable that yet another AfD came from you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...so? BeŻet (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look BeŻet , you even executed, what appears to be, a double vote at your last nomination for deletion (nominated by you) - back in April so please please spare me the "so" comments, okay? Your constant endeavours to delete this article do not look good from a neutral point of view. I believe you should step aside for a while. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've been pestering every single Delete vote. Spare me your condescending comments. BeŻet (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with the successfully deleted page on Patrick Lancaster, the Lira page relies heavily on 1) a brief mention in an NBC article; 2) a brief mentions in a questionable source (Firearms News); 3) an article in The Bulwark (website) and The Daily Beast; 4) articles on his disappearance in places like Cyprus Mail and some Spanish language sources. All of these (except NBC, which has a single sentence on him) are mostly inspired by or about Lira's alleged "detention" by the SBU. There are also a few sources or reviews on him as a novelist or film maker, but these also do not seem particularly noteworthy to me. I think it's obvious that the article was created because of Lira's popularity among a certain "anti-Western" or "pro-Russian" crowd on YouTube and Twitter, not because of his failed endeavors as a filmmaker or novelist: having an article making him seem more respectable and legit.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the above users particularly Eremenrich, know about the notability of this youtube personally because they have edit warred for months about how to shape the article. Removing many sources. This is a well established youtube personality. ~~John~~ 2A00:1370:8172:9394:54C6:36CE:F88B:2EF (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC) This signature is deceptive-this #vote is by an IP, not an established user.[reply]

Note to closer: This IP, who has probably edited under user names given their strange dislike of me, has few or no edits outside this topic area and is also WP:canvassing editors it thinks likely to support keeping the article, see [5], [6].—Ermenrich (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon. Three months isn’t enough water under the bridge. Can we leave it a little longer and see? BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon. - I would like to see if that person gets any additional notable coverage by the end of the year. Please re-evaluate in January 2023. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once this article gets deleted, you can reconsider creating it afresh in January 2023 once he gets more coverage, but I highly doubt he will gain any. He can't pull the "I got kidnapped" trick more than once. BeŻet (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think so. Also, a reminder to you - WP:BLP apply to the talk pages as well. If you continue your behaviour on this page (please come up with a RS for your statement above that WP:BLP subject ...pulled the I got kidnapped trick.. or remove it) this will have to go elsewhere. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made up by himself. Should be banned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.109.90 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft pending development of substantial encyclopedic coverage, which does not appear to exist at this time. BD2412 T 19:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good solution, so that the content does not get entirely removed in case Lira does in fact become more notable. BeŻet (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would hope this doesn't get to another AfD (for a 4th time). Perhaps even draftifying could be an option, but I don't think much will come up; we haven't found decent enough sources now. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article should remain as this person is very influential among leftists such as Yves Smith and the pro-Russia, Anti-American left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatherineTheGreat2022 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak draftify; keeping wouldn't be the end of the world. There's a decent amount of reporting on his alleged abduction, and reporting on him more broadly from two sources that are reliable enough for our purposes (The Daily Beast and The Bulwark). If the coverage of the alleged abduction had been more in-depth, I'd probably come down keep, and I think one or two more instances of RS coverage about him as a person would get to keep. As it stands, I don't think it would particularly hurt the encyclopedia to keep this in mainspace, but it probably falls a bit shy of GNG. (Disclosure: I'm working on a draft that mentions Lira, so I suppose I have a nonzero bias in favor of having an article to link to.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:58, 8 August 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.