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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waine Turner (kickboxer)[edit]

Waine Turner (kickboxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet GNG or WP:NKICK, as ISKA isn't a major world title and they gave out titles left and right. Nswix (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and England. Nswix (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely agree with nominator. Doesn't pass WP:NKICK or GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteI couldn't find evidence that he meets WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NKICK. I think the fact that he lost all three of his K-1 fights is a good indicator that he was never ranked in the world top 10. Papaursa (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NKICK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:21, 21 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Del Borrello[edit]

Christopher Del Borrello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Del Borrello has run for a lot of positions, but has never won anything. There's lots about his family, his political positions, his endorsements and contributions, but there is no claim of notability and none of the reliable and verifiable sources needed to back up that claim in the article itself, nor could I find anything more in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe that the sources present are both reliable and verifiable, as many are from popular sources that are verified as unbiased. His coverage in the media should be more than enough to meet WP:GNG. Antny08 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But the existence of campaign coverage also does not confer a free pass over WP:GNG that would exempt them from having to meet NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere on earth always gets some campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would get that exemption and NPOL itself would never apply to anybody anymore. So campaign coverage only functions as a bypass around NPOL if it demonstrates a credible reason to treat his candidacy as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies, but that hasn't been shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He also is the CCO of the DelBorrello group, a banking institution in Philadelphia. Antny08 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is still not "inherently" notable in its own right. Even business executives still have notability criteria that they have to surpass, and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  [[1]]

  This is an article having to do with one of Del Borrello’s businesses. It is written by Politico, a large and trusted source. He is the main talk of the article.

  [[2]]

  Another major article. Antny08 (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Those are both campaign coverage Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unelected politicians need to be notable for something other than being a candidate, since almost all candidates get coverage - and he is not (his stint as a hyper local politician does not count.) SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He is the CCO of the Del Borrello group. Antny08 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rather ridiculous to think that we should have articles on people because they're compliance officers of small family businesses. CCOs of even massive corporations don't get articles, that's not a notable position, and that's not what sources focus on. There are a lot of losing candidates, and we can't have articles on them because there's some routine coverage of every campaign leading up to the election. Election campaign-related information is welcome to be added to 2023_New_Jersey_Senate_election#District_4. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  [[3]]

  This is an article having to do with one of Del Borrello’s businesses. It is written by Politico, a large and trusted source. He is the main talk of the article.

  [[4]]

  Another major article.

  Antny08 (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't pass NPOL and has no other claim to notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article about an unelected political candidate. There is no plausible claim of notability as a business executive. Bearcat and SportingFlyer have analyzed things well. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete The reason for "delete" is that 95% of the sourcing is about the failed election bid and there is no solidly GNG source. The "weak" is because there is a bit a coverage about other topics, as well as some prominence of this election evidenced in sources which might put it into "edge case" territory with respect to the norm of how the standard is applied. North8000 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  [[5]]

  This is an article having to do with one of Del Borrello’s businesses. It is written by Politico, a large and trusted source. He is the main talk of the article.

  [[6]]

  Another major article. Antny08 (talk) 13:32, 20 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl Aldana[edit]

Raúl Aldana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico. Owen× ☎ 19:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Delete. I couldn't find any independent, reliable sources with in depth coverage, but his breadth of work comes close to meeting WP:ENT #1 if it can be reliably sourced. [7] is comprehensive but not reliable and I couldn't find anything better but I might have missed some Spanish sources. The lack of coverage of voice actors in general is a great shame and injustice, but we need something to base an article on and I don't see any coverage in reliable sources to base an article on. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Delete argument is a Reluctant Delete. I think the discussion should carry on for a few more days and hopefully other editors can participate here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG.Lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:08, 21 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhananjaya Das Kathiababa[edit]

Dhananjaya Das Kathiababa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I would have have draftified this but there is already a draft. This article was a Frankenstein’s monster of religious fancruft, repeated material and appalling referencing. I removed unsourced material and then went through all the refs. Most were utter nonsense that had nothing to do with the article subject, or just mentioned his name but did not support the content of the article. There are only three sources left. One is not independent and I can’t access the other two. I’m prepared to believe that the subject may indeed be notable, but if they are this very poor article does them no favours. Mccapra (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Hinduism, India, and West Bengal. Mccapra (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poorly sourced article and does not corroborate with the subject. I do not see any beneficial contribution and significant notability from this poorly sourced article.RangersRus (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable person. It is a recreation of an article that has been to AFD twice before. Most of the article appears to have been written by Srabanta Deb using various accounts to evade his/her block. Srabanta Deb usually recreates deleted articles using slightly different versions of the same name to make it harder to spot what he/she is doing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:08, 17 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 02:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Vitoin[edit]

Tom Vitoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. Last AfD by Wgolf was only closed as no consensus because no one commented. Boleyn (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Portugal. Owen× ☎ 19:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not finding any sourcing about this character, this is all I pull up [8], a site to read the comics. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BEFORE didn't uncover WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:19, 19 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.

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 keep‎. Reading S Marshall's comments as a non-bolded keep, there is consensus here. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 17:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny Food Co[edit]

Skinny Food Co (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promo piece, fails WP:NCORP ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks notable to me. Reliable sources 1, 2, already listed in the article. Don't delete: fix.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @S Marshall neither is significant coverage and whether independent or not, they both read as promo pieces to me. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I collegially join issue with you. :) The Sunday Times is a British Newspaper of Record and Wikipedians evaluate it as reliable. The relevant discussions and consensuses are linked from WP:THETIMES. If you can read that link and say it's not SIGCOV then I don't really know how to react to that.—S Marshall T/C 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both would be considered reliable I believe, but The Times reference would not be considered WP:CORPDEPTH. The Lancashire Telegraph is borderline WP:CORPDEPTH as it does go beyond a routine announcement by providing background on the company. Are there any others as even if these both were found sufficient, not sure they would be enough for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mirror is also a British national newspaper, much less reliable than The Times (cf WP:DAILYMIRROR) and I would be suspicious of anything controversial that it said, but I would think it's reliable for the uncontroversial claims in this article, which is again already listed as a source. The article seems to be about the founders, but it's got quite a bit of depth about the business.—S Marshall T/C 22:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing and notifying of the deletion proposal. I tried to only use secondary sources that meet the standards for credibility. Although I do agree with you that some feel promotional, as far as I could tell none were advertorials, product placements etc, and were more just positive skewed coverage. I did try and balance the article and remove any overall bias in the article by proactively seeking out critical sources also.

Westenders (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – top sources are used. I concur with S Marshall. Also, the article isn’t very WP:PROMO imo. TLA (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sourcing is adequate for a corporate article and promotionalism is not so thorough as to necessitate a complete rewrite. It just needs some minor editing. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No valid reason given for deletion. Windolson (talk) 23:51, 15 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists[edit]

College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cannot find any secondary sources on DDG and DDG news search with significant coverage meeting WP:NORG. I also searched under its previous name, "British Association for Sexual and Relationship Therapy (BASRT)". Darcyisverycute (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. Darcyisverycute (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 15 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait and the International Monetary Fund[edit]

Kuwait and the International Monetary Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The topic is not independently notable. There isn't significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, as Kuwait does not have a relationship with the IMF that is worthy of an article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Economics, and Asia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nothing here notable enough to merge into International Monetary Fund, and the title is too unlikely a search term for a redirect. Owen× ☎ 00:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above nothing notable here. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:38, 21 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Traveling Awareness Bears[edit]

The Traveling Awareness Bears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doubtful notability. PepperBeast (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Organizations. PepperBeast (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Basically nothing in the way of media coverage as far as I can find, and the organisation seems to have shut down anyway. ― novov (t c) 03:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article is based too closely on the organisation’s own claims about itself. There is some third party coverage (I didn’t find any more than is in the article) but that seems to just recycle what the organisation says about itself. There’s nothing really substantive there. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:09, 21 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.

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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Angel (2003 film)[edit]

Fallen Angel (2003 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can't find any evidence that this film meets WP:GNG or WP:NFO. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as per discussion and added sources below pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this article has been previously tagged for speedy deletion in 2016 pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And please note that that speedy deletion was immediately declined. The page was also ProDded in the past (and again, that was contested). More seriously, would you, in the light of the sources presented, consider withdrawing this nomination? Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) @Pinktoebeans:[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This review from Toledo Blade should probably qualify. Here is a review from Dove.org. Here we have Movieguide. These two are more questionable. Geschichte (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets requirement for notability of films, as could be expected with such a cast. Added sources (some happen to be mentioned by Geschichte above). See for yourself. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. I dug further and found two syndicated pieces; reviews in three countries [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]; capsule reviews [18], [19], [20] as well as an Associated Press recap that puts the viewership (when the film premiered) at 17.4 million. No real WP:BEFORE can have been done before nominating this. I therefore whole-heartedly recommend access to Newspapers.com through something called the Wikipedia Library. Geschichte (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources identified and added to the article by Geschichte and Mushy Yank. Toughpigs (talk) 23:38, 15 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.

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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junya Ito (footballer, born 1998)[edit]

Junya Ito (footballer, born 1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Created at a time when WP:NFOOTY was enough with an appearance in the J3 League. Can't find anything but stats pages for this player, and he's barely made a mark on Japanese football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe not retired, but still a player with no accomplishments whatsoever and consequently no coverage. Geschichte (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per Geschichte. Svartner (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom --Devokewater 19:39, 20 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.

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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Kakande[edit]

James Kakande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: My instinct is to support deletion, though a single by the subject was in the top 50 in Italy in summer 2006, which makes me wonder if a dedicated editor could scrape together enough sources. Without assessing reliability, here are some Italian-language sources I found in a few searches if anyone would like to attempt a salvage exercise: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sourcing found is Soundcloud, Rate Your Music, MySpace, Last.fm... None of which are RS or useful here. No coverage for this musician. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:55, 21 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.

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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Otter[edit]

Daniel Otter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Same rationale as the last AFD, the references mention the subject in passing and it doesn't appear that they have met the notability threshold. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Coverage is all press release items or articles about other people where he's mentioned. I don't find any extensive sourcing in Canadian sources either. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom/above. BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all routine mill news, name mentions, listings, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  02:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see significant independent coverage of him in reliable sources. I found a number of passing mentions, mainly in articles on events describing him as the promoter, but merely doing your job does not prove WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:01, 18 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.

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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KGMM-CD[edit]

KGMM-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No SIGCOV in the Express-News. All it says is, The festival will be taped by Mas Musica TeVe, an independent music video network that airs locally on noncable channel 58. (Aug. 6, 1999). That's what became MTV Tres. Explains the call letters but very little else. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: That passing mention might be enough for a mention in MTV Tres#Free-to-air affiliates (which currently makes no mention of K58EU/KGMM, listing a different San Antonio station instead), but probably not even a redirect. Overall, a station with a history that is basically just Más Música TeVe, MTV Tres, and then becoming another all-diginet station doesn't strike me as the type of station that could possibly warrant significant coverge. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:44, 15 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.

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 delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 22:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third Harvest[edit]

Third Harvest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Northern Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless better sources are out there. I couldn't really find any independent evidence of their existance with a couple searches. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sources found other than agricultural use of the term.Nothing in Irish sources either. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to find Third Harvest on discogs, musicbrainz nor on allmusic - which is not a good sign. Difficult subject to search for due to the farming references. At most I have found this BBC blog proves they played Rock the Lough, but that is nowhere near sufficient notability for inclusion. ResonantDis_tortion 12:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:54, 21 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.

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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. Horowitz & Co.[edit]

S. Horowitz & Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No notability demonstrated - Altenmann >talk 18:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Article is highly promotional in tone and needs a rewrite. However the firm has significant and ongoing national-level coverage in Israeli press, with the firm existing since 1921. For example [21] [22] Marokwitz (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Markowitz. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's the oldest surviving and 10th largest law firm in Israel. Already nominated for a second time. Again, with no good reason. gidonb (talk) 04:47, 17 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.

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 redirect‎ to Jakarta EE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta Activation[edit]

Jakarta Activation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or be worth a merge/redirect to Jakarta EE as it could unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of sourcing, and unverified content shouldn't really be merged. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no notability demonstrated by independent sources. - Altenmann >talk 18:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jakarta EE: the API is verifiable and is already mentioned at the target, but doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 16 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carinthian Matadors Rugby Football Club[edit]

Carinthian Matadors Rugby Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I couldn't find the sources to confirm it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, no suitable redirect here either per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:12, 16 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.

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 redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KOBS-LD[edit]

KOBS-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I doubt it garnered much, if any, significant coverage pre-2016 — that was when it became another DTV America/HC2/Innovate station, and that incarnation definitely has no coverage, notability, or anything of note. Yet another survivor of that bulk nomination from last year. Note that prior to 2019 this was a redirect to KPFW-LD, but a previous mention there is long gone, and it probably has as much (i.e. little) notability anyway, so that's not an ideal solution. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No SIGCOV in the Express-News. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Without any knowledge of its pre-HC2 history outside snippets there really isn't much here there to be had. KPFW-LD itself could probably meet the same fate (that there's even a mention of it not being on Spectrum 'at this time' is astonishing). Nate • (chatter) 01:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:49, 20 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.

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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Gonzalo Lira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | 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)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  not only that but debunked: [23] 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  Here [24], 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Several editors say so here and some of the better sources refer to the Kremlin's attempt to portray him as such. It's what they do -- portray their useful idiot as a prisoners of conscience on free speech issues. That's why. Elinruby (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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[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_creep^Talk 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]

• 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)[reply]
• 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: [25], hence WP:RECENTISM argument is invalid. - Altenmann >talk 18:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I have just added the fourth in-depth article from a 2023 Ukrainian source: [26], 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)[reply]
  • P.P.S. the here is fifth in-depth 2023 article from Times of India: [27], 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

  • 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)[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]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  ......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)[reply]

  ...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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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[28] 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.[29]--Mhorg (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On January 15, the article had 15,500 views.[30] The article has been translated into another language, a total of 12.[31] Mhorg (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  > 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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

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

• 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 [32]. 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)[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]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[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_creep^Talk 14:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[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_creep^Talk 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 [33]. 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]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• Weak delete. 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. Hence, 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)[reply]
• 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)[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]

• Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 ^[1] maybe going through all the evidence of the ideas of the author he presented ^[2] 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)[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]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)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]

• 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) Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA scope_creep^Talk 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_creep^Talk 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]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• Keep: per Jfire. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Oh no, of course Tatrsky is a lot more notable, and not only his assassination, but even women used as patsy [34] is probably notable enough to have her page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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 ([35], [36], [37]), Hungary - which is a member of NATO ([38], [39]) and Romania - another NATO member ([40]). StjepanHR (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis[edit]

• 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	[41]	Yes	No	No	No	Its likely non-rs.
2	[42]	No	Yes	No	No	WP:PRIMARY. Self-published opinion piece.
3	[43]	Yes	Yes	No	No	Non-RS. Database generated profile.
4	[44]	No	Yes	No	No	It is an interview. WP:PRIMARY.
5	[45]	Yes	Yes	No	No	Its a passing mention, in reaction to another story.
6	[46]	Yes	Yes	No	No	Its a quote, a passing mention.
7	[47]	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	[48]	Yes	Yes	No	No	Single para is passing mention.
9	[49]	Yes	No	No	No	Short para, taken from Twitter. Its non-rs.
10	[50]	No	No	No	No	Report taken a podcast. Staff report, no byline Profile effectively. Non-RS.
11	[51]	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	[52]	Yes
13	[53]	No	No	No	No	Uses Twitter as a source to build the article. Bylined article "Who Is Gonzalo Lira?"
14	[54]	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	[55]	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	[56]	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: [57]
17	[58]	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	[59]	Yes	Yes	No	No	Two paragraphs, not significant.
20	[60]	No	No	No	No	Event listing for bookstore discussion. Its is non-rs.
21	[61]	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	[62]	Yes	No	No	No	Event listing again, for some reason. Completely non-rs. Why is that even in the article?
23	[63]	Yes

scope_creepTalk 12:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a WP:SPA scope_creep^Talk 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]

• 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)[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:

• Dedicated author profile in El Mercurio, Chile's newspaper of record [64]
• Dedicated story (and shorter follow-up) in The Independent [65][66]
• Dedicated story in Business Insider [67]
• Dedicated story in New York Daily News [68]
• Dedicated story in SwissInfo originated by EFE [69]
• Focused story in TF1 (French TV) [70]
• Story about death in The Daily Beast [71]
• 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 [72][73][74][75] and KyivPost [76], 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[edit]

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: [77]

La Tercera (major Chile newspaper): [78][79][80] (last link should be included as there are several paragraphs written about him before the interview)

More Daily Beast coverage: [81][82]

Europa Press: [83]

New Voice of Ukraine: [84][85][86]

CNN Chile: [87]

KyivPost: [88]

Mala Espina: [89]

Hill TV: [90] (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: [91][92] (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. [93] JSwift49 00:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
El Mercurio [94]	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 [95]	article has byline	considered a RS	~ half page, mostly about the twitter exchanges	~ Partial
Business Insider [96]	has a byline	~ no consensus on reliability of the source	~ discusses the twitter exchange	~ Partial
EFE vis Swissinfo [97]	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 [98]	French news network, story has byline	generally considered reliable	~ talks about his detention and points out falsehoods in the news stories	~ Partial
Daily Beast [99]	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)[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]

• 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)[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_creep^Talk 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_creep^Talk 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_creep^Talk 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]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I am not sure I follow. The reviews are now in the article. Thriley (talk) 21:37, 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_creep^Talk 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_creep^Talk 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 [100], and other places that sell the books, or even libraries that mention them [101]. They are also found inside the book or on the cover quoted with other notable reviewers. [102]

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]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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".Ryoung122 21:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plenty of coverage both of his exploits in Ukraine and of his earlier career. Btw the previous AfDs weren't unanimous. Alaexis_¿question? 17:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was a weak delete in a previous AfD. There was a bit of coverage, but not enough. The material since his death takes it over the threshold, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No grounds for even nominating this for deletion. It made sense to nominate it in c. April 2022, not anymore. The fact that you don't like a subject so much you want to even erase any trace of it on the internet cannot be grounds for deletion on Wikipedia. Major coverage worldwide internationally and not just English but Spanish, Russian, Ukrainian. I bet thousands were googling his name even before his death. The guy was mentioned by several prominent figures even prior to his death, and again, in many languages not just English. It is extremely rare --maybe even unprecedented-- that a US expat gets arrested/murdered abroad for expressing some political views ont the internet and just that. If some pro-Ukrainian outlets hearsay accusations are to be taken seriously, i.e. he was filming military installations for Russia, then that makes him even more notable as a 21st century US spy for Russia, which is even more rare & notable. --Yabroq (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I feel it's necessary after reading the most recent wave of "keep" votes to remind everyone that whether or not we personally think Lira was a particularly notable or historical individual is not relevant to whether he gets an article on Wikipedia. What matters is whether WP:RS support that conclusion. So far, I have only seen tabloids, weird, obscure newspapers, and non-RS like Fox News, TASS, and various sources associated with governments friendly to Russia used on the article. I can't judge the Spanish language sources as well as the English language ones but I would surprised if it wasn't the same story there. I realize that a lot of people feel strongly that he deserves an article, but unless you can get a good news source to actually cover him, a source like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, all of this talk of how there are tons of sources about him and how he was mentioned by famous right-wing figure X is just a load of hot air.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly, this is turning into a WP:SNOW that should've never been AfD'ed. There's just too much coverage and your assessment of So far, I have only seen tabloids, weird, obscure newspapers, and non-RS like Fox News, TASS, and various sources associated with governments friendly to Russia used on the article is demonstrably false and without any merit worth considering further. Heck, he's got two books on Wikipedia now (Counterparts (novel) and Acrobat (novel)). We've debate the sourcing to death at this point and the consensus is becoming clear that he meets WP:NOTE; maybe not GA level sourcing, but that's not AfD's problem. He's got 64 sources worth of coverage and about a dozen of which fall squarely in WP:RS. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS to get a better idea of what does and does not qualify as WP:RS. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:08, 22 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]

• “So far, I have only seen tabloids, weird, obscure newspapers, and non-RS like Fox News, TASS, and various sources associated with governments friendly to Russia used on the article.”

  Have you not looked at the article in its present form? Demonstrably false comment. JSwift49 11:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Currently, it seems that the article contains several important and reliable sources. Mhorg (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A clear strong keep, for all the reasons given by senior editors here, meets WP:NOTE on every level. And that he is dead does not mean he will not be continued to be referenced by notable sources, the evidence is that it has even increased that, given that his death was reported across the world, and by global sources. So, a strong keep, and let's now work together to get the article to where it needs to be, in terms of Wikipedia standards. Luganchanka (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Gonzalo Lira has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events, as Jfire has so aptly demonstrated. When also acknowledging the 1996 profile that was written about him by a WP:NEWSORG, it's quite clear that he passes WP:NBASIC while avoiding WP:1E concerns.
  With respect to the arguments for deletion, I've read through them, and I don't find them persuasive in the least. Scope Creep's table above was interesting, but I disagree enough that I'm inclined to keep here. I'd be a bit more sympathetic towards deletion if his only activity were getting jailed in Ukraine and dying in prison, but such a case doesn't reflect the reality of the sourcing situation here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If you keep this bio of an obscure red-piller blogger, in a few years you will just have to delete it anyway. →StaniStani 01:49, 23 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.

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 redirect‎ to House van de Werve. Daniel (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles II Henri van de Werve, Lord of Schilde[edit]

Charles II Henri van de Werve, Lord of Schilde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This appears to be yet another genealogical entry. I have searched Google Books and Google Scholars for references to this man and have found no indication of significant coverage. The name "Charles II Henri" appears to be entirely invented. WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy says that Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Netherlands. Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Keivan.f^Talk 20:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Potential WP:ATD is a redirect to his entry in House van de Werve. Curbon7 (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect into House van de Werve. Delete is an overkill, merge an underkill relative to the necessary action. Thanks nom for the AfD and Curbon for suggesting an ATD. gidonb (talk) 07:32, 16 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 02:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Hoffman (author)[edit]

Lynn Hoffman (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Arguments at 2007 AfD for keeping it were poor. Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Link to the previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Hoffman, Author Geschichte (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn’t find anything worth adding to the page (reliable sources, or any other meaningful reference). 185.104.138.35 (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It currently doesn't meet WP:GNG and I can't see that there's anything better out there. Thebookstamper (talk) 14:27, 17 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.

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎

Motokatsu Miyagami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable member of notable bands, per WP:BANDMEMBER Broc (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. Broc (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP BANDMEMBER doesn’t really explain what to do in a situation like this at all, is there more precedent here? My instinct is that someone who’s been a member of three notable bands has a decent claim on notability themselves, but the guidelines don’t really provide any guidance on where the bar is. Obviously SIGCOV applies but that’s a little tricky, does it have to exclude the bands they are in to count? WilsonP NYC (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this is covered by WP:BAND #6, "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles", in which case the inclination would be for us to keep the article on those grounds. Dekimasuよ! 13:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK in that case add my vote as Keep to this discussion. WilsonP NYC (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dekimasu shouldn't the subject still have significant coverage in independent secondary sources? That's completely missing here, he's just a guy changing bands very often. --Broc (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't receive this ping, but yes, there should still be significant coverage in independent secondary sources. I was mostly answering WilsonP NYC's question here. I did not search for sources in Japanese myself, but presumably almost everything is in Japanese in this case. Ddid you search for Japanese-language sources as part of WP:BEFORE? Dekimasuよ! 04:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks everyone for the comments. I'm withdrawing the nomination, as the notability criteria are satisfied by WP:BAND #6 and the presumed existence of multiple secondary sources. --Broc (talk) 19:48, 21 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark These Words[edit]

Mark These Words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Completely unreferenced article. Fails WP:NALBUM ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no evidence of notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odd Crew as to why no AtD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bulgaria and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Liberal National Party of Brisbane leadership election[edit]

2019 Liberal National Party of Brisbane leadership election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Without actual numbers as to the result of the election itself (other than who won it), this article lacks a purpose that could not be achieved in the text of another article. I propose its deletion. An article like this should exist instead with the results of a list of LNP mayoral leadership elections, if there are sources for it. (Also, the "Liberal National Party of Brisbane," not a thing.) J2m5 (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. J2m5 (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. There really is not much to write about for this topic, and this article is part of a broader pattern of Totallynotarandomalt69 treating local government as if it were a state government or federal government.. Steelkamp (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  pretty unfair comment there - BCC is pretty widely treated as a large government which is why there are very in-depth articles for its elections, even by-elections and wards get pages

  But I think the initial @J2m5 comment is fair so I'm happy to support delete and maybe re-direct to a more expanded section on Schrinner's page? Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The current wording "Liberal National Party of Brisbane" wouldn't be good because that's not an official name in use. So I would prefer a straight delete rather than a redirect under the current article's name J2m5 (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Makes sense, support that Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Totallynotarandomalt69, please read WP:POLITICIAN. Mayors and councillors are not notable most of the time. TarnishedPath^talk 04:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Without any secondary sources (all are WP:PRIMARYNEWS), merging is not a good AtD, and there is no clear target for a merge in any case. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Following on from WP:POLITICIAN that mayors/councillors are rarely notable, I fail to see how an article about the preselection of them is notable. TarnishedPath^talk 04:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: can't find anything that suggests notability --Devokewater|(tαlk) 19:47, 20 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.

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some Assembly Required (2007 TV series)[edit]

Some Assembly Required (2007 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 13:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Technology, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Camacho, Melissa (2022-02-24). "Parents' Guide to Some Assembly Required". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

     The review notes: "While the series is very informative, it lacks some of the spark needed to make it fun viewing for kids who don't already get a kick out of science. Its focus on almost every step of the product-assembly process sometimes makes it a little tedious. But the uncomplicated scientific explanations give interested tweens and teens a real chance to learn the physics behind how the products we use every day actually work."

  2. McNeill, Brian (2007-09-06). "UVa physics professor snags spot on Discovery Channel". The Daily Progress. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

     The article notes: "Abowling ball. A Gibson electric guitar neck. Hundreds of jelly beans. The nifty souvenirs are one of the best perks of Louis Bloomfield's new gig - co-host of the Discovery Channel's upcoming show "Some Assembly Required." ... Bloomfield, a popular UVa professor who teaches physics to non-science majors, will debut Dec. 26 as the science expert on "Some Assembly Required" alongside co-host Brian Unger, a former Daily Show correspondent. ... During each one-hour episode, Bloomfield and Unger visit three manufacturing operations around the country, including the factories where workers make Gibson guitars, Jelly Belly jelly beans, New Balance sneakers, Steinway pianos, coffins, sushi knives, bowling balls and more."

  3. "Bloomfield brings science to masses: UVA prof co-hosts Discovery Channel show". C-Ville Weekly. 2007-12-04. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

     The article notes: "Bloomfield is the co-host of the Discovery Channel‘s "Some Assembly Required," a show that travels to factories and plants—like the Gibson plant in Tennessee—to take a closer look at just how everyday things, most of which we take for granted, work. ... From guitars to Wisconsin cheddar cheese to ice-making Zambonies, "Some Assembly Required" has taken Bloomfield across the country in search of the not-so-obvious hidden in everyday objects that have surprising scientific and technological beauty. ... Bloomfield landed the Discovery Channel gig when a former student auditioned for the role of the show’s host. He didn’t get it—it went to Brian Unger of "The Daily Show" fame—but while there, he recommended Bloomfield for the co-host spot. The show’s producers contacted Bloomfield, who is a natural fit."

  4. Engler, Daniel J. (2008-06-10). "TV Picks June15-21, 2008". National Catholic Register. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

     The article notes: "Discovery: In this series, hosts Brian Unger and Lou Bloomfield visit factories across America and join workers in manufacturing the products about which we wonder “How do they do that?” — from acoustic guitars to Zamboni machines and even cat’s-eye marbles."

  5. Durden, Douglas (2007-12-27). "Discovery finds host at U.Va". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

     The article notes: "Louis A. Bloomfield, University of Virginia physics professor, adds Louis A. Bloomfield, TV host, to his résumé at 10 tonight when the Discovery Channel previews its new "Some Assembly Required." The hourlong series looks at items ranging from high-tech to mundane in its quest to unravel the process of assembly. Bloomfield, author of a textbook ("How Things Work") and a trade book ("How Everything Works"), is joined by humorist Brian Unger, a former "Daily Show" correspondent, as co-host. We recently asked Bloomfield to tell us about his debut as a TV host, and what makes "Some Assembly Required" work."

  6. Ravana, Anna (2008-04-18). "Old Town Canoe gets airtime Discovery sends TV crew, firm makes Outside '30 Best'". Bangor Daily News. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

     The article notes: "Old Town Canoe and its parent company, Johnson Outdoors, received national attention this week from Outside magazine and the Discovery Channel program "Some Assembly Required." A film crew of seven from "Some Assembly Required" enjoyed an afternoon of sunshine Thursday on the Penobscot River as they filmed an episode on the making and use of the firm's canoes and kayaks. Director and producer Emily Hodges said Old Town Canoe's long history of canoe making was what appealed to the show's research team."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Some Assembly Required to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw per Cunard's sources above. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:36, 19 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Beach Jacobson[edit]

Roberta Beach Jacobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

She doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, with a question over notability since 2006, so hopefully we can get this resolved now. Previous AfD was 'keep' but that was in 2008 when our standards were significantly lower for inclusion. Boleyn (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Her website comes up, then various links to buy her books. Nothing about the person, no reviews of the books I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with Boleyn that this kind of promotional hagiography was a common keep at AfD back in the way -- without even looking at the previous one, I'm sure there were "Ooooo, look, she wrote a lot of books!!" answers -- but enough is enough. The subject meets none of the provisions of BIO or GNG, there is not and never has been any proffering of reliable sources concerning her. Time to clean this up. Ravenswing 14:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - an IP editor removed reviews on 13 March 2023 [103] (Globe & Mail archive version; ABC AU archive version). These reviews discuss her contribution to Rite of Passage: Tales of Backpacking 'Round Europe, but on their own, do not support WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC notability. Other reviews removed by the IP editor on 13 March 2023 [104] seem to be not helpful for supporting notability (absolutewrite.com) or have limited information provided to help locate the review (The Journal of the Lincoln Heights Literary Society) for assessment. Beccaynr (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I also searched for sources and reviews online and at the Wikipedia Library. There were some results for her writing, but I have not found substantial independent and reliable secondary support for WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 19:49, 16 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.

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. Arguments come down to "meets GNG" versus "no it doesn't." No one demonstrated the available sources are not valid towards notability, neither did anyone clearly demonstrate they are. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amala Shaji[edit]

Amala Shaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No claim of notability for this promotional article on a tiktok user. It has been stated that she is a model and musician, although this has not been proven by the sources cited. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, and WP:NMODEL. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many sources to prove that she is an Internet celebrity (social media artist/star)[105] Can it be proved whether dancer WP:ARTIST Notability passes?? -- Owner of magical cat 🐈 (talk) 9:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You've written an article about an internet celebrity for the second time. She does not meet any of the WP:ARTIST requirements. This is just an another case of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A celebrity vanity page. Fails GNG. Article has some weird claims that she is a social worker,model and actor. She has not acted in any movies yet and is not a big boss contestant. Only thing she is having are some Instagram and tik tok followers which is not a notability criteria.116.68.101.172 (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Most coverage is about being a Big Boss contestant, but it's just enough. Most is in malayalam script, so a Gnews search brings up lots there. I'd give it a pass.Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The sources used in the article, although mostly tabloid, demonstrate enough notability to 'get over the line'. Redtree21 (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does't meet WP:GNG, nor WP:ARTIST . Dcotos (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Specific assessment of the sources available would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom does not meet NACTOR.Tame Rhino (talk) 13:50, 19 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.