Gonzalo Lira

Gonzalo Lira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article fails to demonstrate in either its text or its references that Lira is notable. The references are below the threshold that we require; They need to be about him, and independent of him and significant coverage and in WP:RS. None of them pass this set of criteria. Instead we have references that show he exists, but that is, pretty much, all Fiddle Faddle 19:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Several days ago the article was a bunch of fluff text supported by OR and substandard primary sources (see analysis of those sources here). After cleaning it up and removing the substandard sources I scoured the web looking for reliable secondary sources and finding a few I put them into the article. However, as the nominator has indicated, and has been discussed on the talk page [1], even the existing secondary sources do not provide substantial coverage of the subject and therefore the subject does not appear to meet the requirements for a stand alone article per WP:AUTHOR. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The Lira entry is markedly improved and is now neutral. The imposition of neutrality revealed that this entry has no underlying substance, the lack of substance being analogous to lack of notability. These types of vanity-entries exist because the existence of a Wikipedia page can provide a legitimizing credential in and of itself. In this way, this entry represents a fundamental misuse of Wikipedia. Why has the revision of this entry been so contentious? If the entry could stand on its own merits there would have been more flexibility in allowing it to be adjusted to neutrality. The entry is not meritorious, the subject lacks notability and therefore I concur that the entry needs to be deleted. Renaissancego (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)RenaissancegoRenaissancego (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article using WP:STiki. Renaissancego (talk · contribs), I reverted your changes to the article as inappropriate; I don't see that you made the article better. You made it worse, and seemingly to further your "it should be deleted" rationale. Flyer22 (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very outrageous assumption on your part, I don't have any motivation to an agenda. The edits were made because the article can be reduced to ISBN only that is how I see it. If consensus does not agree that is fine. Extensive reasons listed in (talk) At first, I was not going to edit the article down as I would do on other entries of a similar ilk for fear there would be nothing remaining. I have added back ISBN list which took some time to compile, then I removed it because of redundancy. IMHO, The ISBN only is the way to go if the article remains. I appreciate your effort "to improve" the article which is markedly improved. Renaissancego (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)RenaissancegoRenaissancego (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment thank you for returning it to its somewhat better poor state. A valid outcome of this discussion would be the provision of assertion of and verification of notability. But at least we are still discussing the baseline I saw when I nominated it for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 08:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]