Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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. An explanation of the close is on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Kulinski

AfDs for this article:

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

Kyle Kulinski (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)

There is very simply no RS coverage of this person. We cannot write a Wikipedia article about a subject if all the sources are non-RS and primary sources. There are currently three RS in the article[1][2][3]... none of them even mentions Kulinski once. In previous AfD discussions in 2017 (which concluded as 'no consensus', there was a sense among some 'keep' votes that this individual was 'about to hit it big'. However, there is no RS coverage either before or after 2017 to substantiate that this individual is notable. His main claim to fame appears to be that he runs a YouTube channel and co-founded Justice Democrats, but even RS who cover the Justice Democrats don't mention Kulinski. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Above Comment @Snooganssnoogans: It's not clear why this is relevant. The subject of the article is under no obligation to not report on the fact that his Wikipedia page is being considered for deletion. Furthermore, supporters of said subject have every right to make their opinion heard in this discussion, especially if they are established Wikipedia editors who did not make their accounts today. If your concern is "bias", well, to be frank, everyone here is "biased". We all have an opinion. You seem to have an opinion too, by referring to him as "Fringe-left". In actuality, the policy positions he supports are supported by the majority of Americans, unlike centrist corporate Dems and Republicans who are bought and paid for corporate shills. In any case, the point is whose opinion is backed by the most sound argument, and in this case it's obviously the Keep side. CompactSpacez (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Snooganssnoogans: The last vote in the "before" category came after this page was linked on Social Media (Kulinski was not the first to post this on Twitter). I do believe that categorizing people for coming afterwards is very unproductive. It seems to divide the opinions from "legitimate" to "not legitimate". I also want to clarify that your use of "Fringe Left" is not only biased, but incorrect. If you watch his channel (With a notable >700,000 subscribers) you would also understand why your use of the term is reaching at best. Fringe-left would describe ideologies on the left that are akin to authoritarianism and communism. Kyle's show is what would be considered "Socially Democrat" or "Leftist" to the politically savvy. Which is far from "Fringe". The original vote was 4 Delete 1 Keep. I watched in real-time.
Comment @Snooganssnoogans: This comes across as a bad faith attempt to poison the well against keep votes. And while we are poisoning wells, I suggest people check out Snooganssnoogans's comments/behavior in this discussion to judge their good faith for themselves. GlaedrH (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've followed your advice and checked out that discussion. Snooganssnoogans did not act in bad faith. You appear to be leveling that accusation because he adopted a position that you dislike. Lepricavark (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to the comments where he(?) takes any positions, but the ones (of which there are several) where he attempts to discredit other users' comments by pointing at their posting history rather than the contents of their comments. I do not consider that civil or good faith; though you may, of course, disagree. GlaedrH (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd. It's perfectly reasonable to point it out when a bunch of individuals crawl out of the woodwork to interfere with an AfD. Lepricavark (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Crawl out of the woodwork", "interfere". I sincerely hope your article edits are more carefully worded. GlaedrH (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should play it safe and only make a few edits a year like you. I'm sure that would qualify me to nitpick the posts made by people who actually devote a substantial amount of their time to improving this project. Anyone can act like an authority on Twitter, but here you are actually expected to prove yourself before you can do any pearl clutching. Lepricavark (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I must have missed the policy pages describing the number of edits required to be taken seriously or "prove" oneself. I would apppreciate if you could link me to them. GlaedrH (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you have missed many, if not all, of our policy pages. I've no interest in helping you figure out why veterans editors like myself would be annoyed when an individual who almost never edits suddenly turns up and starts slinging mud in the midst of a contentious discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, this has now devolved to the level of the navy seal copypasta. I think you have now given us enough of a sample to understand what level of discourse we should expect from "veteran editors". I thank you for your service and wish you all the best in the future. GlaedrH (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3 years and 5 months makes you a veteran these days? Even when I started 14 years ago, you'd have needed at least 4 years to call yourself that non-ironically. Orderinchaos 04:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the extra 7 months would be so significant, but my main point was never to promote my own credentials. What bothers me is that numerous editors have suddenly reappeared after lengthy absences to !vote keep at an AfD in which the article subject canvassed voters on Twitter. And some of these individuals are aghast that anyone would have the temerity to say anything about it. I'm sure that you, as a sysop, can understand the irregularity of this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was intended half-seriously. But running around biting the newbies and assuming bad faith isn't the way to do this. I know that you mean well, but optics matter. Orderinchaos 09:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should expect that other editors will respond in a similar fashion if you pull a similar stunt in the future. I'm sure you'll fancy yourself the victim in those cases as well. Lepricavark (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The edit count or any accomplishment of an editor does not affect the validity of a substantiated claim. There's a well-known humor page about obsession over edit counts titled Wikipedia:Editcountitis. However, unsubstantiated claims at this point in the discussion only recycle old arguments without the evidence and add nothing to the discussion. UnnamedUser (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question has not made any substantiated claims. Also, I'm well aware of the level of importance attached to edit counts. My argument is that someone who almost never contributes should not expect a favorable response when they randomly show up and start casting aspersions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: If deleted this would be a red link on a draft talk page, some Super Progressives merchandise featured this journalist together with Jimmy Dore, Iversen, Gabbard, Williamson, Sanders, AOC, et al. (clearly no RS). –84.46.52.75 (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The linking of that video is unprofessional and rude. CompactSpacez (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Snooganssnoogans: There's a number of issues here. First, what is an RS? You seem to have this idea that only corporate, for-profit, billionaire-owned media is "reliable". Naturally, the corporate media does not report on anti-corporate, anti-establishment folks who fight for the people, like Kyle. That's by design, and to be expected. Second, Kyle has been reported on by RS media, even using your own definition of "RS". For instance, see this or this or this. As you mentioned, he's also been on Fox News. Lastly, if appearing on Fox doesn't make one notable, nor does having a major presidential candidate do an interview on your show and having the press secretary of said candidate call you 'the most popular YouTube host on the left', what does? What standard do you have? Is Fox News also not a reliable source? Well, I'm not the biggest fan of Fox News, certainly, but I would love to see the official Wikipedia edict that Fox is unreliable. CompactSpacez (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Justice Democrats article; none of the sources indicate any sort of independent notability; there's very little about him, nearly everything is about the organization itself. --Jayron32 13:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Founder of the Justice Democrats, significant interviewer, and has been in the news this week over his rebuttal of the New York Times. He is not hugely notable but does pass our notability guideline. The fact this has ended twice before with no consensus suggests to me that reasonable people can indeed disagree - I'm also a "veteran editor" like the combatant above but have come to a different conclusion. Orderinchaos 04:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Tweet Votes

Snoog this was a "Keep" before Kyle posted on Twitter... You're not doing your job correctly. Keep, he has nearly 1 million subscribers to his channel, defeats major news networks in key demographics, founded the political group that helped get one of the most influential Congress people in America elected

  • Delete. Kulinsky is not covered in significant detail by reliable sources. The closest he comes is getting mentioned in passing by sources talking about the founding of Justice Democrats. If a redirect is chosen instead of deletion, the redirect should point to Justice Democrats. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that deletion is even considered is weird and oddly suspicious with respect to the current news involving his reveal of a dishonest #nytimes article. Kyle Kulinski is a political figure on social media. He is regularly invited for his analyses in various media outlets and online channels. His YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/SecularTalk has 766k subscribers.

  • Keep. When you consider how many trivial actors/actresses, vapid models, third-rate rappers, silly wrestlers etc. have long, detailed articles, it seems rather odd that this one should be nominated for deletion. WQUlrich (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Kyle has over half a billion views on youtube, over 700K subscribers and is the co-founder of Justice Democrats the progressive group that helped to get many influential members of congress elected such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Talib, and Ilhan Omar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.Esco (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm curious as to what the standards of notability are for a Wikipedia article to be kept up. He is a rather large component of left-wing new media with a large following through his Youtube channel with over 750,000 subscribers, has been a commentator on various mainstream news outlets such as Fox News, CNN and The Hill, and as has been mentioned before, founded Justice Democrats along with Cenk Uygur. If Kulinski, arguably the most popular left-wing commentator on new media, isn't notable, then by the same token, are similar commentators such as Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder and David Pakman not of notability? Or if they are of the notability requisite of a wikipedia article, what facets of their careers make them notable enough? It seems a bit off to me that a pundit of Kulinski's notoriety would not be of enough notability to have a wikipedia article. Additionally, I find the criticism of the lack of RS moreso a result of figures in New Media often having a lack of RS and Kulinski's lack of history on traditional news outlets resulting in a lack of RS rather than a supporting claim for the article's deletion through the aforementioned argument for a lack of notability.
I don't intend this as a polemic, but I find that the arguments for deletion are overly pedantic (specifically in regards to the "lack of notability" arguments) and come from a lack of understanding of New Media, especially in regards to pundits that don't have previous employment in more traditional media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theogonybyamillionstrokes (talk • contribs) 22:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all: Kulinski even has articles in other languages. Deleting it here, while it is still up in other languages (where he arguably has much less influence) would be strange at the very least. Furthermore as others mentioned he is a founder of the Justice Democrats, interviewed Bernie Sanders, had several appearences on the Joe Rogan show, was a speaker during Politicon for multiple years and has one of the largest youtube channels amongst the (progressive) political commentators in the US. The channel is large enough so someone like me who is not from the US, with english as a second language and until recently not too much interest in US politics at some point found the channel. While you could argue, that these things by themselves don't have too much weight, I would say their combination certainly make up for it. I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia's deletion guidelines and precendences, but to me it doesn't look like he is "irrelevant" enough to be deleted. Tobias Xy (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an obvious attempt to delegitimize independent media. Many YouTubers have their own Wikipedia pages. Cenk Uygur, for instance, had his own Wikipedia page at a time when his YouTube channel had far fewer subscribers than Kyle currently does. There is no "notability" issue here. I can scour through Wikipedia and find hundreds of articles on people far less notable than Kyle. Here's a simple example: Malabika Pramanik, a mathematics professor at my University. She has no "reliable" (TM) sources reporting on her, beyond one broken link and a single mention on an awards list on the Association for Women in Mathematics website. She doesn't have glowing NYT or WPost articles written about her. Yet she was still deemed (in my view, rightly) as deserving of a Wikipedia page. You can find many such articles throughout Wikipedia. Kyle's YouTube channel is huge, and he's personally had on numerous guests who no one would dispute are notable. Frankly, I think many editors here are likely older in age (40+) and have an antiquated view of "notability". These are not the 90s anymore. You do not need to be Wolf Blitzer for your political commentary to be relevant. This is 2019. People under 30 listen to men like Kyle, or Cenk, or Joe Rogan, or (on the other side of the spectrum) folks like Ben Shapiro or Nick Fuentes. The so-called "notable" corporate media shills (Rachel Maddows, Jack Tapper et al.) are irrelevant to them. CompactSpacez (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not hard to find examples of folks on roughly the same level as Kulinski in terms of notability, also in a creative profession. I mentioned Cenk. David Pakman is another example. For WP:Creative, the basic criterion is that the person is regarded as "important". In Kulinski's case, this basic criterion is absolutely met. He has been on FOX news, he has interviewed at Politicon, he has had numerous high-profile people on his platform, he co-founded Justice Democrats, a now fairly mainstream political group in the United States, and lastly he has a massive YouTube channel, described by a major presidential campaign as being the largest left-leaning YouTube host. If your standard of "importance" is so high that Kulinski is excluded, then that's simply setting a new and frankly ridiculous precedent. In other words, if Kulinski's not good enough, we might as well delete like 1/5th of all bios on Wikipedia. Lastly, note the Wikipedia page on notability makes clear that "failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". If you've been in any AfD discussions, you would understand that in general editors don't religiously adhere to the listed criteria and often a case-by-case analysis is required. In brief, we are living in new times. These aren't the 90s anymore. YouTube popularity is in and of itself a form of substantial notability. You do not need a MSM gig to be a notable journalist. CompactSpacez (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kyle has 750k subscribers and is pretty important so he does deserve an article of his own. He has co founded the Justice Democrats PAC which has helped get Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and many other congresspeople elected. He has also been on many legitimate news outlets and is quite influential on YouTube and Twitter, and for that reason, I vote to keep this article, it is absolutely ridiculous someone would say that this article should be deleted. Arthurcurrie (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kyle Kulinski is a brilliant and influential political commentator and innovator in New Media. His analyses are always backed up by rigorous analyses and fact checking. There is no objective reason to delete this article. FairGirl 28 December 2024,14:17, 28 December 2024 UTC [refresh]
  • Discussion @Snooganssnoogans: @KidAd: It seems as though you have an issue with supposed "brigading" and you are deleting edits. I think we need some clear guidelines here. I hope we can agree that edit-warring is not a productive solution to this. On what basis exactly are you differentiating between trolls and good faith editors? CompactSpacez (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be easy to categorize any comment made after Kulinski tweeted a link to the page as...unproductive. While I understand that Kulinski has many fans/followers on Twitter and Youtube, they are obviously unclear on Wikipedia policy and conduct. Newcomers should at least skim WP:AFDEQ before typing out a diatribe about Kulinski's brilliance or popularity. It will get them nowhere. Also, editors who alter the page's formatting are fighting a losing battle. KidAd (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were 7 votes during the course of four days, with 6 out of 7 votes going for 'Delete'. Within hours of being advertised on Reddit and Twitter, there were a trillion votes, nearly all of them were 'Keep' and they cited no policy-based arguments. In amongst the brigading, there was one legitimate vote by Binksternet. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snoog is correct. I would like to note, for Kulinski fans who are editing the page, Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments KidAd (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny you mention "reasonable, logical arguments" when almost all keep votes bring up legitimate arguments and the single argument the delete advocates are bringing up is "you came from twitter, so it doesn't count". In reality, it does not matter whether someone came from twitter or from any other website, what matters is "sound logical arguments", and just one of the many arguments for keep (let's say Justice Democrats for instance) is enough for WP:NN. Please WP:WAR WP:AGF.Solinothe Wolf 07:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Snooganssnoogans: @KidAd: I will remind both of you that the two previous AfD's have failed. It seems that many editors are on the "Keep" side. This is not something that is an "obvious delete". There is a debate to be had. You mention Wikipedia policy, but the gist of your argument is based on a non-policy: that fans of someone or something cannot edit pages on that someone or something. This is...not true. Another point you seem to be making is that the fact that Kulinski made a tweet regarding this invalidates all of the keep votes. This is again not true. It's not a Wikipedia policy. Good-faith Wikipedia editors might have seen Kulinski's tweet, which spurred them into action on this matter. That said, I agree with you in part. There have undoubtedly been some trolls on the "Keep" side. At the same time, others are not trolls. I see a variety of well-thought out opinions on the keep side. Deletion of individual comments should be considered carefully on a case-by-case, keeping in mind WP:GOODFAITH. CompactSpacez (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kyle Kulinski's channel is projected to have more than a million subscribers by next year (source: Social Blade, 12/16/2019), which is notable in itself. As a cofounder of Justice Democrats, he played an instrumental role in the historic election of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and is a key figure in political commentary, significantly and tangibly influencing public discourse. He has been a guest on Fox News, The Hill (newspaper) TV, The Joe Rogan Experience, and on many popular independent-media shows, including The David Pakman Show, The Jimmy Dore Show, The Humanist Report, and The Young Turks (his show is part of the TYT Network). Kulinski also is a top draw at Politicon, attracting more fans than some Democratic presidential candidates. --Houdinimuseum (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — Houdinimuseum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, Bearian summarises it up quite well.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kyle Kulinski is one of the most widely viewed progressive political "anchors" on YouTube. I see a lot of discussion here seemingly ignoring that entirely. A lot of "Delete" votes are writing off his connections to significant politicians and presidential candidates. While factually correct, he is not those people and did not create the "news", that is not his purpose or why he is notable. He is notable for giving ordinary people the news. Such as any TV anchor that has their own Wiki page. The only difference is that he appears on YouTube (independent) and not TV (corporate). Seeing as more and more people are getting their news online, it seems silly to discuss deleting this wiki page at all. Just as in the attempt before this, we know he will only get more popular. This is trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.242.241 (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — 65.5.242.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep/Merge with existing relevant pages Another page going down... No, I was not canvassed and I do support either keeping or merging this page with relevant pages. It's clear that the page does not use enough secondary sources (his own videos are NOT sources!) - this just needs better sourcing for each reference and each source if it is to stay up. It's quite clear that he has made a name for himself in politics; a co-founder of Justice Democrats and a prominent political commentator, going to politicon and what have you. It may not seem that way to an outsider, but Kyle has become more prolific in the past few years - all the articles, interviews, segments that he has either been mentioned on or personally appeared in. I've seen worse articles with barely skeletal information on barely "notable" people, I think it's incorrect to call him a 'run of the mill' YTer who is not notable. If appropriate changes cannot/won't be made, merge it.Letmejustcorrectthatforyou (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to being a founder of Justice Democrats, the foundation that got Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez elected, Kyle receives approximately 30,000-40,000 views per video within an hour of the video being uploaded and has over 766,000 subscribers on YouTube alone. His unique perspective on many issues makes his work incredibly valuable to many people, and deleting his Wikipedia page serves no purpose. The page does not seem to be violating any rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.218.18 (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — 97.92.218.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – after a Google News search, there appears to be lots of non-significant coverage / significant coverage in unreliable sources. None of the sources I found make this subject pass WP:GNG, although I can see that some of the Keep voters are using reasoning that coincidentally matches WP:ANYBIO: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Just saying that GNG is not the only notability guideline to discuss. UnnamedUser (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OK, I've made up my mind. I've looked at the way reliable sources look at him, and the bond is too weak to say that he satisfies criterion 2 of WP:ANYBIO (see also the footnote): (widely recognized contribution... enduring historical record. He's widely recognized for founding that organization, but the passing mentions we've all cited don't adequately explain his significance to politics in the grand scheme of things. The two The Hill articles IP 2601:5C0:E:9DA4:FDD2:465D:F5B1:9E05 brought up are just a single sentence linking to a YouTube video, so they do not contribute to satisfying WP:GNG. UnnamedUser (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looking at the sources in the article, he doesn't pass WP:GNG. He ultimately might be notable, but I don't think there's a single qualifying source in the article (hard to tell if good.is is reliable, and the RCP isn't secondary coverage.) Potentially promotional. SportingFlyer T·C 02:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: co-founder of Justice Democrats and thought leaders on alternative media on the progressive side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commentator1 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — Commentator1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Hasan Piker is also up for deletion. Who's next, David Pakman? If we're not careful WP is going to end up covering only conservative figures who have the same right to be on here as Kulinski and Piker. NDACFan (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable individual incites people to interfere with our processes. Non-notable individual remains non-notable. Lepricavark (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect - maybe the best solution would be to merge the article with Justice Democrats article for now, and separate it again if the person will progress into 'notable'. This would keep relevant information, and keep with policy. 130.102.10.83 (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most if not all of the arguments for inclusion are that Kulinski has a large youtube following, is a founder of Justice Democrats and has published articles and appeared on news shows. While true, none of those factors affect notability in Wikipedia, which is substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. It is actually in Kulinski's best interests not to have an article, since he would have no control over what was put in it and it could become a hit piece. See his Rationalwiki article for the types of negative information Kulinski's opponents might add to the article. TFD (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has almost a million subscribers to his channel. he co-founded Justice Democrats. The subject passes our general notability guideline. We keep subjects that pass GNG with WP:RSs. Lightburst (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as noted multiple times: Kulinski is the co-founder of the Justice Democrats, appeared often on The Young Turks as well as several appearances or is quoted on other networks and popular shows like Fox News including recently in an article and The_Joe_Rogan_Experience, and often appears or is featured at political conferences like Politicon (where he is listed on the Wikipedia page). At a minimum, he qualifies as an entertainer "opinion makers" having a large online following. Nbx909 (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Justice Democrats (seeing no need to delete the history and a redirect is inevitable since it's a notable organization he co-founded) - saw this at ANI. Decided to ignore all of the mess above and just do a search for sources. I see a few mentions, a few quotes, and lots of primary sources, but not enough in-depth coverage about this person to satisfy WP:GNG (for the small amount of coverage there is, WP:NOPAGE applies given the very logical alternative page). Any keep argument at this point really needs to surface some additional sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I feel so bad for whoever is tasked with closing this mess of a discussion now that the subject has tweeted a link to it) To every editor that wants this article kept, instead of bringing up how many subscribers he has, find non-primary sources to add to the article. The deletion banner at the top of the article has a Find sources section with a number of useful buttons to press. I'm seeing a lot of off-wiki accusations that we're only considering deleting, moving, or redirecting the article because we're "conservative trolls." I can assure everyone who came here because they were told to that this is not the case. It's a matter of notability and verity - in other words, if this biographical article about the subject was stripped of the sentences that only link back to the subject's own content, and left only the secondary sources, how much would be left? As of right now, not much. If you believe there are sufficient secondary sources out there, expand the article. Cheers,  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 11:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have found this stating that he is a co-founder of Justice Democrats, a speaker of Politicon, and an affiliate of the Young Turks with his own channel. All three groups are, to a good extent, notorious. His name appears in four books written in 2019, of which three are partisan works but one of them is actually an academic work. My guess is that deleting the article appears to be an unnecessary drastic solution.Barjimoa (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The correct link is to the Politicon page is this. Kulinski's a speaker, it says so in the URL, it's not independent. Also, the four books only give passing mentions, so none of the sources you cited help the article pass GNG. UnnamedUser (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Justice Democrats – simply no coverage in reliable sources beyond passing mentions. Notability has a special meaning on Wikipedia that is not synonymous with importance or fame. So: we don't care how many YouTube subscribers he has. We don't care about his political leanings or the quality of his commentary. We don't care that he interviewed such-and-such person or appeared at such-and-such event. We don't care that he co-founded a notable organisation – he does not inherit its notability. We don't care what "trivial" articles exist that someone believes are clearly not as important. All we care about is whether he has received significant coverage in reliable sources – and despite dozens of meatpuppets having been canvassed to this discussion, not one has been able to provide evidence to show this is the case. – Teratix ₵ 13:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article survived 2 previous deletion nominations, notability seems clear. He has been covered in reliable sources like The Hill, and he is certainly more notable than other people in the category that have articles.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Justice Democrats. WP:SALT, or I'm betting we'll all be back again next month; no prejudice against recreation if he ever does get WP:RS coverage.
I found this discussion from the notification at WP:ANI. (I read ANI from time to time to reinforce my conviction that I have no desire whatsoever to apply for WP:ADMINship.) As I read through it, I began to play WP:ATADD bingo. I ticked off WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:BIGNUMBER, WP:INHERIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, and WP:ASSERTN, mainly from among the !keep votes, and may have missed some. I feel for whoever wades through and closes this discussion.
I subscribe to a YouTube channel on a niche subject which has over 500k subscribers, and on which the most popular video has had over 3.5M views. That doesn't make it notable. The WP article about the host gets 150-200 views/day. That doesn't make him notable either. What does make him notable is the couple of independent in-depth articles from reputable sources specifically about him which are cited in the article.
I haven't conducted any searches of my own; if it hasn't been found already by a contributor to this thread, I reckon it ain't there. I looked at all the sources in the article. Precisely one could be said to be specifically about Kulinski - the realclearpolitics one - and that's a report of a podcast which for me does not come anywhere near WP:RS. I also looked at the RationalWiki article (I am a very inactive editor there, though I do have an account; anyone who thinks I might be a conservative, troll or otherwise, is very wide of the mark). It contains nothing RS in our terms.
Conclusion: the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO for lack of anything WP:RS to support it. Narky Blert (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Oops, I did miss one off my bingo card - WP:OTHERLANGS. Narky Blert (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
(Also WP:NOTAGAIN. Narky Blert (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete This page (and ensuing drama) has been so captivating the past few days that I haven't had time to contribute my opinion. As editors have said more eloquently above, this individual – despite having a LOYAL fanbase and appearing at Politicon (?) and Rogan's podcast – is not supported by enough reliable sources to warrant an article. Nor do I believe that Wikipedia notability should be measured in YouTube subscribers, twitter likes, or reddit comments. It should be measured in daylights, sunsets, midnights, and cups of coffee. KidAd (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was not summoned to this article. I don't have any connection to the subject, don't watch his show and I do not do social media. Instead, I have a long history of saving content from irresponsible AfDs, including run-ins with several of the thoughtless serial delete voters above. This has all the signs of other AfDs where deletionists are determined to delete despite mounting evidence. We have 21 sources at this point; a lot more than at the time of the NOM or even when the supposed cut off happened. So why haven't they reversed their votes? We have also had WP:Wikilawyering, nit-pickingly removing additional content. In other words, bad faith editing because they want to achieve the result rather than a just decision. With a popular youtube based show growing to a half million subscribers over 7 years, Kulinski is a leading progressive commentator. That, by nature, means he is not establishment or a part of conventional "corporate" media, he is usually at odds with them. So you want to limit his coverage to appearances in conventional media and exclude the base of his viewership? He has made several appearances representing his point of view on stage at Politicon. You don't get that and get invited back if you are a nobody or can't represent your views. And being named as a co-creator of the Justice Democrats meant he was respected enough amongst that community to be in the room (or on the call) when those ideas were formulated. I'd guess there were other people involved but they did not carry enough sway to merit being credited. Simply put we have WP:GNG, we have multiple claims to notability. He generates content and resulting cross comments daily, so this is an ever growing subject if rational standards were applied, that than the artificial standards used attempting to remove this person from wikipedia's public explanation of who this pundit is. Trackinfo (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:ATADD bingo, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Narky Blert (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of significant coverage, especially from reliable secondary sources about the person. Here are the main issues:
  • Early life, education and career: three out of four sources are not independent, and the fourth source simply quotes from a podcast. Not everyone who appears on a notable podcast inherits notability from that.
  • The Kyle Kulinski Show: The "In 2012" paragraph about the show is unsourced; the one source only mentions the person and none of the show details. The "adpocalypse" sentence mentions him in passing, and HuffDuffer and Reclaim the Net appear unreliable.
  • Justice Democrats: The Mother Jones source is reliable but does not mean a biographical article is warranted since this is already covered in Justice Democrats. Rolling Stone only mentions Kulinski briefly, and it is a particularly garbage move to quote The New York Times (that never mentions Kulinski) to pad on descriptive text. Regarding Cenk Uyghur's resignation, the source doesn't even mention Kulinski. To combine this with Kulinski's solidarity tweet is disingenuous conflation. Appearing on The Jimmy Dore Show is okay but does not contribute to a biography. The Huffington Post about Cenk Uyghur does not even mention Kulinski. As for the last paragraph related to Duke, even the text of this is inappropriate padding-on. And again, for this, Kulinski is briefly mentioned.
If these are the best sources for Kulinski, then a biography is definitely not warranted. I've performed a search engine test and have only found brief mentions of the person. No issue with redirecting this person's name elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What amazes is how even after this article has survived two deletion attempts and was able to pass requirements of notability before, some people think he can't pass them now, even though Kyle has only gotten more influential in subscribers and public appearances since then. The opponents of this article are also complaining about "Reliable sources" when nobody even knows what a reliable source is anymore. Are these sources like CNN, which lied The U.S into two wars at the behest of their advertisers and never apologized or MSNBC which lies about Russiam interference to this day reliable sources, I am doubtful. Yet these sources are used to verify other articles and have anchors who have articles that never get nominated for deletion. The truth is that a reliable source is a euphemism for corporate-funded source and Kyle's show continues to grow in popularity as does the influence of the Justice Democrats he co-founded. J.rodz01 20:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will probably come to regret this, as WP is unlikely to be able to maintain any sort of NPOV on an article on such a contentious subject. However, as to whether we should have this article, I think they pass our tests for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearian's reasoning, missing WP:SIGCOV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kyle_Kulinski_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1262488815"