Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (2nd nomination)

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. Many of the keep arguments here are rubbish but there isn't a consensus to delete. If anyone has a mind to nominate this article again, it would be helpful to read Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion first. A Train^talk 07:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Kulinski

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

Doesn't cite any independent reliable sources for notability; citations are links to self-produced YouTube videos. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you have an argument that addresses notability rather than article quality? --Michig (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is made quite clearly, because WP:BIO is pretty clear, as is WP:RS; a biographical article that isn't supported by independent reliable sources quite simply has to be deleted. Self-published YouTube videos are not evidence of notability. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That doesn't currently exist in this article, and a quick search doesn't find any other substantive reliable sources discussing him. The burden at this point is to provide evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable... and independent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous AfD was closed as no consensus 4 days ago. Reopening this so soon is unlikely to be productive. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two !votes were not based in policy; one essentially amounted to "he'll be notable someday," which is literally WP:CRYSTAL. That's not how we write biographical articles. A biography without independent reliable sources cannot exist on Wikipedia, per fundamental policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This statement from above says it all. Self-published YouTube videos are not evidence of notability. Notability has not been established. Fails BIO and GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete/'Strong Keep' - Kyle gained notability as a co-founder of Justice Democrats.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG as associated with Young Turks. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did the nom try Deletion Review? I think re-nomming an AfD 3 days after it was closed (and low !Voter turnout to boot, I would of relisted it) is not the way to go. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Passes GNG as associated with Young Turks" - passing GNG requires independent reliable sources. Do you have any independent reliable sources that can support the writing of this biography? That's what we're looking for. An entirely-self-sourced biography is not appropriate for Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

WP:GNG also states that the coverage needs to be independent from affiliated parties, and from the searches I've done when creating, AfD'ing and editing the article, there just isn't enough independent coverage yet. Hopefully this will change in the future as I personally believe he is above and beyond notable for his own article, but that time has not come yet. Buffaboy ^talk 00:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep again but Comment in same time of why this back again?, Already got renominated within 2 months for failed getting reliabe sources is oblivous but again there no time limited of getting this again deleted and if where more mainstream sources like these three are reference or related to him.^{[Kyle Kulinski 1]}^{[Kyle Kulinski 2]}^{[Kyle Kulinski 3]} (enough last one is unfair to him and his organization but enknowledge his existance in sametime without connected to TYT) – Chad The Goatman (talk) (contribs) 19:42, September 25 2017 (UTC)
Weak delete Unfortunately while I personally believe the subject is notable, due to a lack of independent coverage, it's just too soon. Buffaboy ^talk 00:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I guess, But it's would help that there very few mainstream sources to him before Justice Democrats fame. – Chad The Goatman (talk) (contribs) 22:04, September 25 2017 (UTC)

Delete there is a lack of indepdent coverage in reliable sources, so we should delete, notable means the subject has been notable, and Kulinski has not been noted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any individual with his own IMDB page in my opinion is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. That being said, I believe this article needs serious work with links to third-party sources to establish notability.Firstclass306 (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, an IMDB page ≠ notability. This is not my opinion, it is a rule. A significant role in a significant film = notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- per above reasoning. Kyle gained notoriety as co-founder of the Justice Democrats--Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it seems to be a little WP:TOOSOON. Being a co-founder of Justice Democrats is a claim to notability, as is having the online program Secular Talk, but note that that article redirects to The Young Turks#TYT Network, presumably for lack of WP:SIGCOV. Lack of WP:SIGCOV is also the reason I'm saying delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure that we need so many references to youtube in the article just to state his personal viewpoints, but the evidence is available in Google searches that readers want an article with reliable information. Good Magazine writes at [1], "...one of the progressive left’s most outspoken voices...a popular figure in progressive politics". Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's the first direct article about him that I've seen yet. I don't know why it didn't pop up in my searches. Buffaboy ^talk 14:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, it showed up on the first page of a Google web search for ["Kyle Kulinski" bio MSNBC]. Unscintillating (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I know that, I mean the search I did a month or two ago. Buffaboy ^talk 23:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article seem to meet WP:GNG Samat lib (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the Good Magazine article and a few other sources. He googles as a notable subject. Trackinfo (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Löschnazis in the English Wikipedia, interesting. There are also articles about him in other languages. From a non-native speakers view, his channel is very useful for me to learn about the political system in the US. --W-j-s (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet GNG. Carrite (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How can a living person appear to meet GNG without a single reliable source in the article? Bearian (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you meant that literally, so I took your point that youtube and twitter are not WP:RS for a BLP, and removed that material from the article. Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2017 (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.

[1] ttps://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/hacker-floods-isis-related-twitters-pro-lgbt-messages-porn-n594506

[2] ttp://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-prez-ben-carson-gay-marriage-20151028-htmlstory.html

[3] ttp://ntdaily.com/justice-democrats-only-support-unjustified-idealism/

[Kyle Kulinski 1]

[Kyle Kulinski 2]

[Kyle Kulinski 3]