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

Should not be deleted.

The nature of the sources is due to his particular method of social media centric communication. Hansel Zweinhander (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep

As a cofounder of Justice Democrats, one of the most influential groups to break onto the stage in 2018 with the likes of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Kyle Kulinski is a notable figure in American politics. Aiden359 (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Has half a billion views on his YouTube Channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cats4life666 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I finally found the "keep" vote button. Already posted my thoughts somewhere else on accident. Scottspa74 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Kyle Kulinski has nearly 800k subscribers has appeared on the joe rogan podcast 3 times where Joe Rogan has called him "his favourite political commentator" he also has multiple videos garnering with million plus views Dcdcdc044 (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

He is a well known figure in American politics. This page should not be deleted. It is ridiculous that it's even being considered. Goddess sun (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Co-founder of Justice Democrats and thought leaders on the progressive media side. What is the standard of deletion? Kyle belongs here more than Ben Shapiro. Commentator1 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Do not delete this article William J Moses (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I that he was the first media commentator referenced in this recent Fox News article: https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-times-issues-correction-after-wrongfully-suggesting-cenk-uygur-defended-david-duke. Considering he was the first and only prominent commentator that was quoted in a recent political controversy by a RS such as Fox News the only answer now (whatever the outcome would have been earlier) is to keep this entry. The RS mentions his political view and the affiliation of his Youtube channel as well. Shoalla (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Kyle Kulinski is a key figure in the realm of US politics on Youtube, with over 600million video views. He is a major voice for progressive policies in US politics and is one of the most popular independent media channels for the left. He has been powerful force in grassroots organizing, which has helped lead the democratic party shift to the left over the past few years. Kyle’s Secular Talk is one of the most comprehensive, informed, honest, and well-rounded daily news channel on Youtube. Kyle Kulinski is a news organization, an activist, a political science specialist, and he himself is a brand — being the face, voice, and mind behind Secular Talk. He actually holds a university degree in the subject unlike many independent Youtubers who comment on political matters.

Kulinski was given the rare opportunity to interview Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders. Kulinski’s interview with Bernie Sanders reached 1/4 of a million views. He has made appearances on TYT, Fox News, Joe Rogan, The Jimmy Dore Show, and Jesse Lee Peterson’s show. His 3 appearances on the Joe Rogan Experience have a combined view count of over 5 and a 1/4 million. His total monthly video views are well over 2 million. Kulinski’s Secular Talk has received over 12 million video views in the last 30 days, only 2 million less than the Phillip DeFranco Show, which has more than 5.5 million more subscribers than Kulinski’s. Kulinski also has had more views in the past 30 days than Steven Crowder who has more than 3 million subscribers than Kulinski. Kulinski has more than 10x the views of Jesse Lee Peterson in the past 30 days and 7x the number of new subscribers in the past 30 days. DeFranco, Crowder, Peterson all have Wikipedia pages that are not at any risk of being deleted.

A Google Trends search highlights Kulinski’s increasing interest and relevance. “A value of 100 is the peak popularity for the term.” The term “Kyle Kulinski” has reached 100 twice since October 2018 and that is despite youtube suppressing his content. Just the search results for his name as an American Commentator in Google Trends are more than double the results for CNN anchors Victor Blackwell, Susan Hendricks, and Christi Paul combined. These same three CNN anchors, whom all have their own Wikipedia pages, have a measly combined 136k number of Twitter followers compared to Kyle’s 230k.

Kyle left Justice Democrats a year ago, therefore simply tying him to their Wikipedia page when he is increasingly a relevant figure in his own right is suppressing him as a public figure. Google search “kyle kulinski site:http:www.youtube.com/" brings up over 88k results. Google search “Kyle Kulinski” brings up 417k results. ModMillennial (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

kyles page should stay, if you look at the Justice democrates page, his name has been redacted. I looked at the history of justice democrates pages ....<ref>Justice Democrats is an American progressive political action committee[3][4] founded on January 23, 2017, by Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk, Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks... </re> Kyles name keeps being removed from this page, with his name as one of the founders of justice Democrats that makes him notable. done Coolcatch (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of this page would be needless censorship

Kyle Kulinskis' wikipedia page should be left up Jake Monday (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Kyle kulinski is an extremely relevant political commentator, activist and youtuber. His work in the founding of the group Justice Democrats alone should be more than enough to keep his Wikipedia page up. Coupled with that, he is one of the most important leftist political commentators currently active. Therefore i beleive he meets the standards of relevance and notoriety. The page also doesn't breach any of Wikipedia's policies that I am aware of. Toben12345 (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Foreign coverage

Kulinski has been covered in Dutch newspaper NRC: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/10/17/youtube-is-wapen-van-links-in-vs-a3977142 NRC is considered to be the newspaper of record in the Netherlands. NRC_Handelsblad EYahye98 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

EYahye98, true but it's merely a single paragraph in an article about online activism. Not really the significant coverage needed to establish notability. Schazjmd (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Brigading notice

Hello, is it fine if we turn the "brigading notice" splitter into a smaller (in terms of font size) and more nuanced comment like Every vote below this comment came after a brigading notice on Kulinski's YouTube channel and several subreddits (see the comment immediately below the nomination), but it is uncertain if the votes were influenced by the brigading notice, or how much they were influenced by the notice? UnnamedUser (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Justice Democrats is one of the more important grassroots organizations to arise in the past decade.

Deleting the founder of this discourse shaping organization’s wikipedia entry seems extremely suspicious. Zacbra (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The Hill

@CompactSpacez: Your The Hill source mentions Kulinksi only in passing, you'd need…

<ref>[[The Hill (newspaper)|]] (September 3, 2019). {{tlx|YouTube|iXVFE2hnouo|
Progressive commentator Kyle Kulinski: Why the media dismisses Gabbard, Yang, and Sanders}}.</ref>

…in one line for a reference of their video on YouTube. (The semi-protection here is only semi-hilarious.) –84.46.53.194 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, CompactSpacez is currently blocked for incivility related to this discussion, and it is best if you do not annoy him with pings while he is unable to comment. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 22:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

2601:5C0:E:9DA4:FDD2:465D:F5B1:9E05 suggested similar/better The Hill links on December 17, and yes, we're all aware of the non-inheritence of notability, and the first comment below the DELSORT was from me long before whatever happened on Twitter, and nobody cares about subscriber numbers outside of the silly {{infobox YouTube personality}}. –84.46.53.194 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Closing statement

This is the second time this month we have a contentious US politics related AFD with canvassing concerns (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders is the other), so I'll partly repeat the introduction statement I wrote for the other AFD here:

I'll begin with noting that the scope of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (3rd nomination) is to determine whether the article Kyle Kulinski meets the various criteria laid out at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion that would justify its removal, as well as assorted Wikipedia policies and guidelines that would justify keeping or otherwise changing it. By closing this discussion as either delete or keep we are not aiming at passing judgment on Mr. Kulinski, other than insofar as out somewhat technical requirements that Wikipedia lays out for hosting biographies here. It's also important to remember that on Wikipedia discussions arguments are not merely weighted by the number of people holding them, but also by their strength and by whether they are based on applicable policies and guidelines.

Regarding the canvassing concerns, true, we don't have minimum requirements for someone to participate in AFD discussions and I generally do not discard an opinion solely because it comes from a new or inactive user; however trying to sway a Wikipedia discussion by campaigning offsite in favour of one side - Wikipedia:Canvassing - is generally frowned upon. Anyhow, the headcount is 43 in favour of keeping and 22+1 (the nomination statemenet) in favour of deletion with a few deletes also considering redirection and 3 dedicated redirects, but as noted above a mere counting of heads is not enough to conclude that there is a keep consensus - especially given the indication that a delete consensus may have formed prior to the canvassing effort. I see there are additional comments on the talk page, mostly advocating keeping as well.

Now, onto the arguments the key concern cited here is that apparently there is no coverage of Mr. Kulinski that is substantial - rather than merely mentioning Kulinski in passing -, satisfies the reliable sources criteria and comes from secondary sources despite several editors searching for it, and that having met famous people or having founded famous organizations or having many YouTube subscribers alone do not establish notability. An IP address, Barjimoa and CompactSpacez has contested these arguments by presenting some sources and has also argued that the notability guideline for creators may be satisfied, with several of the presented sources contested by UnnamedUser for various reasons who has however also indicated that a more general guideline may be satisfied. Some delete arguments are also citing the canvassing as reason for deletion. Many of the keep arguments however argue that having spoken to Bernie Sanders, having helped elect several US politicians, having been featured/interviewed frequently on Fox News and The Young Turks and elsewhere and having a large audience and many articles on other Wikipedias should justify keeping the article. Another point has been raised that this type of individual might not get covered in mainstream sources and that "reliable sources" is undefined, as well as concerns that the deletion nomination may be part of some conspiracy (?), deletion may be censorship and that we have plenty of other low-interest biographies around. These arguments have been contested on the grounds that we do not generally use any of these points as criteria for notability.

On balance, it seems like the delete camp's argument that the sourcing-based notability criteria are not satisfied is solidly grounded. The keep camp hasn't for the most part addressed the issue, and has instead cited many other factors which certainly confer real-world importance on a topic but not "notability" as Wikipedia defines it, as well as speculation on bad faith conduct without any evidence. However, some sources have been provided and not all of them have been explicitly contested, plus some non-source based notability claims that are in fact grounded in Wikipedia guideline. The headcount itself does not carry a lot of weight given the canvassing effort that has skewed it, but the arguments do not point neatly in the other direction either. This is much closer to a consensus for deletion than one to keep due to the strength of guideline based arguments for deletion, but some valid counterarguments mean that this discussion does not have a clear consensus in favour of deletion or redirecting and is thus closed as no consensus. If people want to consider a merge to other articles they can discuss so on the talk page, and perhaps folks could also consider a new AFD discussion that is protected from the get-go to avoid another canvassing wave. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

, and in the sense of "decorum" I read this while playing a video published by The Hill today in another browser tab, Kyle Kulinski: Democrats picked the weakest impeachment argument possible. –84.46.53.194 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

What this user^ is referring to is Kulinski appearing on an obscure Hill punditry web-show[1], which is not a RS. That's the type of sounds-like-RS-but-actually-isn't kind of sources that these editors claim substantiate this guy's notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, how can this be concluded as "no consensus"? An overwhelming share of non-canvassed normal editors argued that that this should be deleted, and it was 6 vs 1 before the canvassing began. As for the tiny amount of actual RS coverage that was added amid the canvassing, none of the coverage is substantial. Who can possibly keep track of these purported RS amid an absolute havoc of an AfD discussion and actually substantively respond to whether they mean the page meets notability (which they do not at all)? I guess the lesson from both AFDs is that it pays off to canvass and to create chaos, because no one can apparently distinguish the normal editors from the canvassed ones, and the normal editors are completely incapable and unwilling to have a normal policy-based discussion with this guy's fanbase (because what's the point of discussing Wikipedia policy with people who are solely drawn in to argue for a particular point). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The place to dispute this close is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Here come the Suns (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Well, the WP:SIGCOV nature of some of the sources was not contested during the course of the AFD and since it's not part of the remit of the closing admin to second-guess sources/supervote on them, there was no other close left. "none of the coverage is substantial" would have been helpful had it been posted during the AFD; for the record the vast majority of keeps did not bother to present sources or to make any source-based (or just guideline-based) argument (but some did) so I am not sure if I buy the rationale that contesting them would have been too difficult, as irritating as dealing with the mass canvassing that appears to be fashionable on these topics is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

In this case, I think we should follow Jo-Jo's advice and create a new AFD discussion that is protected from the get-go to avoid another canvassing wave in the new year. I think the Hasan Piker page also needs a critical look as well. KidAd (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Support this ^^^ ——SN54129 13:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe just leave it alone and let's not have drama? The world is not going to end if the article survives, plus it's starting to look like my state's record on daylight saving referendums. Orderinchaos 14:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

There's now a discussion about the "Rising" show and similar sources on WP:RS/N. –84.46.52.176 (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)