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. Tossing aside the IPs and SPAs who should not have participated here per WP:GS/RUSUKR, both the Keep and Delete !voters have made some legitimate policy-based arguments. There do appear to be some sources that meet our standards, and many that do not. It seems unlikely that a relist will make consensus any clearer, so the best path would be to improve the article as much as it can be so future editors can determine if there's enough there, once things cool down. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira

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)

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

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)[reply]
this is the only contribution to Wikipedia from this address Elinruby (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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_creepTalk 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:BLPPUBLIC. That he is Pro-Putin is claimed in many sources. - Altenmann >talk 20:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:BLP also applies to the recently deceased.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is the only contribution to en
wiki from this address Elinruby (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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
Jfire (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor is a WP:SPA. scope_creepTalk 14:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he's also a cowboy, an astronaut and a ballerina.<g> Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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_creepTalk 14:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (EDIT as of 1/20: this has been a learning experience for me in terms of which sources are considered reliable by consensus, however there are still plenty of sources that are reliable/in-depth, many of which I or other editors have added to the article since 1/16.) JSwift49 14:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Chilean newspapers, The Bulwark, The Independent, Business Insider, New York Daily News, Kyiv Post, Europa Press etc. JSwift49 15:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This account is an WP:SPA.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing
  2. ^ https://t.me/realCRP
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)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Dick. 73.27.57.206 (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you've just proven the point, we don't name call here please. Oaktree b (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is a WP:SPA scope_creepTalk 08:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'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. [reply]
This is a WP:SPA. Seems to be off-wiki canvassing. scope_creepTalk 12:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
There's nothing confrontational about that? SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, of course Tatrsky is a lot more notable, and not only his assassination, but even women used as patsy [12] is probably notable enough to have her page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis

Reference
Number
 URL Independent Reliable
 Significant WP:GNG Notes
1 [19] Yes No No No Its likely non-rs.
2 [20] No Yes No No WP:PRIMARY. Self-published opinion piece.
3 [21] Yes Yes No No Non-RS. Database generated profile.
4 [22] No Yes No No It is an interview. WP:PRIMARY.
5 [23] Yes Yes No No Its a passing mention, in reaction to another story.
6 [24] Yes Yes No No Its a quote, a passing mention.
7 [25] 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 [26] Yes Yes No No Single para is passing mention.
9 [27] Yes No No No Short para, taken from Twitter. Its non-rs.
10 [28] No No No No Report taken a podcast. Staff report, no byline Profile effectively. Non-RS.
11 [29] 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 [30] Yes
13 [31] No No No No Uses Twitter as a source to build the article. Bylined article "Who Is Gonzalo Lira?"
14 [32] 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 [33] 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 [34] 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: [35]
17 [36] 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 [37] Yes Yes No No Two paragraphs, not significant.
20 [38] No No No No Event listing for bookstore discussion. Its is non-rs.
21 [39] 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 [40] Yes No No No Event listing again, for some reason. Completely non-rs. Why is that even in the article?
23 [41] Yes 
scope_creepTalk 12:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is a WP:SPA scope_creepTalk 16:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) [reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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:

There has also been substantial Ukrainian media coverage, including The New Voice of Ukraine [50][51][52][53] and KyivPost [54], 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)[reply]
you can't just say there are sources. If there are produce them Elinruby (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're talking about the list above???? I have not yet looked at the Chilean sources, so put them aside for a moment. The majority of the English-language sources are dubious at best, and TF1, on a quick reading, seems to say you cannot believe anything at all the man says. This may not be coming across in machine translation, which at last check had trouble with French verb structures for reporting something untrue. You would be well advised however to compare your list to Perennial Sources, since several of those you are citing are declared unreliable there, or reliable only for "culture". That might possibly cover his dating advice on YouTube, maybe, but does not extend to political and military claims, even if they are made by a dating coach. Elinruby (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TF1 is debunking what Musk and Carlson said about Lira, and the fact they covered the controversy at all demonstrates Lira’s notability. NY Daily News, Independent, EFE/Swissinfo are all reliable and dedicated coverage. Insider, Daily Beast, Newsweek are marked as “no consensus”, not unreliable. But even if you exclude all of them the four above plus Chilean/Ukrainian in-depth coverage, book reviews and lesser coverage in other outlets including NBC/NYT clearly satisfy WP:GNG JSwift49 13:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independent is questionable. It's green, yes, but check the comments. I've left it alone for now as tag-bombing is discouraging and some other stuff was worse. Also check out the comments about the Daily News. I am starting to think everyone involved in this article needs a contentious topics notification. We don't do tabloids in this topic area. It's not supposed to be about how much you can get away with. Elinruby (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors formed a consensus about The Independent and The New York Daily News being reliable. I am sorry that your opinion on these sources is in the minority but that is life sometimes. JSwift49 19:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [55]
La Tercera (major Chile newspaper): [56][57][58] (last link should be included as there are several paragraphs written about him before the interview)
More Daily Beast coverage: [59][60]
Europa Press: [61]
New Voice of Ukraine: [62][63][64]
CNN Chile: [65]
KyivPost: [66]
Mala Espina: [67]

Hill TV: [68] (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: [69][70] (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. [71] JSwift49 00:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
El Mercurio [72] Yes newspaper of record, story with byline Yes does not appear to be unreliable in 1996 when article was published Yes Full story about the author, with byline ✔ Yes
The Independent [73] Yes article has byline Yes considered a RS ~ half page, mostly about the twitter exchanges ~ Partial
Business Insider [74] Yes has a byline ~ no consensus on reliability of the source ~ discusses the twitter exchange ~ Partial
EFE vis Swissinfo [75] Yes EFE is along the lines of AP Yes no bylines, but do have author's initials at the bottom ~ perhaps 6 paragraphs about Lira, partially helping ~ Partial
TF1 [76] Yes French news network, story has byline Yes generally considered reliable ~ talks about his detention and points out falsehoods in the news stories ~ Partial
Daily Beast [77] Yes 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_creepTalk 18:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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_creepTalk 17:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yea right. We will see if any other of the ARS cronies turn up. scope_creepTalk 18:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors from ARS would probably be more helpful than IPs right now. Thriley (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You didn't go through all that hassle last year so please curb the advice, until you know what your talking about. scope_creepTalk 19:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scope, that was me being polite. Threatening people into not participating is a gross violation of AfD policy, not to mention what you did with Counterparts (novel) is obvious retaliation. From WP:ICA and WP:AGF to WP:HA; that threat could even be seen as a type of WP:CANVASING (If nothing else, it derails normal consensus building). If ARS gets inappropriately involved, then we'll deal with it and you'll have my support the whole way through ANI, but right now they're not and you're immediately calling them bad faith actors to poison the well. I repeat, calm down. An AfD isn't worth making enemies over. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 13:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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_creepTalk 23:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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_creepTalk 23:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from PW and Kirkus, there’s newspaper reviews. Thriley (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 [78], and other places that sell the books, or even libraries that mention them [79]. They are also found inside the book or on the cover quoted with other notable reviewers. [80]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
While this page is probably going to be kept, the pages about his novels should deffinitely be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2024 (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.
More