Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson Hinkle


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Jackson Hinkle

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

All of the reliable sources about Hinkle are passing mentions and paragraphs that mention his anti-Israel and right-wing advocacy on Twitter. Very few sources actually establish his notability as a person in detail. The VICE article mostly describes Haz and his far-right movement rather than Hinkle itself.

Can potentially be kept or restored at a later date if sources adequately tackle Hinkle in being the sole subject of an article but at the moment I believe he fails to be considered notable. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Environment, Internet,  and California.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  00:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep 1)  “All of the reliable sources about Hinkle are passing mentions and paragraphs that mention his anti-Israel and right-wing advocacy on Twitter. Very few sources actually establish his notability as a person in detail.”  There are numerous reliable sources that are directly about Hinkle (not passing mentions) that establish his notability as a person. These sources are more than enough to meet the WP:N requirement that’s being called into question. Additionally, WP:BASIC states: “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.” Here is a list of the sources currently referenced in the article that meet the above criteria:
 * Hinkle's beliefs regarding MAGA Communism
 * Debate between Hinkle and Sam Seder (Hinkle is also referred to as a "Marxist" here.)
 * Discussion between Hinkle and Tucker Carlson on Tucker Carlson Tonight
 * Hinkle as a teenager
 * Hinkle's activism against pollution
 * Interview with Hinkle running in a local election
 * Story about Hinkle's drive to create affordable living, reduce homelessness, and a sustainable environment
 * Hinkle's receives and responds to criticism during his campaign
 * Another interview with Hinkle running in a local election
 * Reviewing just how progressive Hinkle is
 * Hinkle discusses Russia/Ukraine conflict with Piers Morgan
 * Description of Hinkle's experience in Russia, brief description of beliefs
 * Disagreements between Hinkle and Laura Loomer about the Israel/Palestine conflict
 * Description of Hinkle's relationship with Anna Linnikova, brief description of beliefs
 * Even if “all of the reliable sources about Hinkle are passing mentions” (which I have shown above is incorrect), WP:BASIC says “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.” This means that even if there weren’t any sources directly about Hinkle, this article would still be notable as a result of multiple independent sources.
 * Out of the sources that are directly about Hinkle, only 7% (just one) of them are about his anti-Israel advocacy. And only 1 of these sources reference his advocacy as “right-wing”. To reduce the sources of this article to being “anti-Israel” and “right-wing advocacy on Twitter” is incorrect.
 * But even if you include the sources where Hinkle isn’t the center of the article, only 31% (11/36) of them are about his anti-Israel advocacy. This means it's inaccurate to write that “all of the reliable sources...mention his anti-Israel and right-wing advocacy”.
 * It’s also an oversimplification to say he is “right-wing”. There is a variety of coverage about Hinkle and he is not universally characterized as being “right-wing”. Only 1 article describes him as right-wing, 2 articles describe him as Marxist, 2 articles describe him as conservative, 1 article describes him as progressive, 1 article describes him as “MAGA”, and 2 articles avoid giving him a label.
 * 2)  “The VICE article mostly describes Haz and his far-right movement rather than Hinkle itself.”  The VICE article is about what “MAGA Communism” means. It gives near equal weight to “Haz” and Hinkle and directly says that Hinkle's involvement with MAGA Communism is “alongside Haz”. Additionally, the VICE article does not say that MAGA Communism is a “far-right movement” which means that the assertion violates WP:OR. Alleycat1995 (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just re this list of reliable sources: I don't think RealClearPolitics, crazyprogressives.com, inoSMI and RIA Novosti are RS, and Rolling Stone, Daily Dot and even Vice are a little borderline for a BLP.
 * The local media sources re his 2019 election bid are reliable, but I don't think they're good for showing notability beyond one single local election BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What makes these sources unreliable? Alleycat1995 (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not state that RCP is not a RS. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right that Wikipedia does not say that RCP isn't reliable. However, there's not a consensus yet.
 * In one discussion of RCP, one editor writes: "linked items should be judged on their own credibility" and multiple users suggest RCP is right-leaning.
 * In another discussion, an editor writes: "RCP has a very strong editorial board, with many award-winning journalists and writers: [2], and the site has a rigours fact-checking process".
 * The editors who argue RCP is unreliable do it on the grounds that "the RCP Fact Check Review is a review of fact checks done by other organisations." as well as "they have in particular been publishing false material about the 2020 election" and "RealClear Media hosted (and may still host) a secret Facebook page promoting far-right memes and extremist conspiracy theories."
 * However, the issues these editors have brought up are not applicable to the RCP articles in question here. Alleycat1995 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes we won’t use RCP to refer to the election. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Real Clear Politics is not stated to not be a RS and can be used if it’s the best source for an event, VICE is a RS, and local news covers Hinkle’s activism from 2017 to 2020 and his electoral campaign. You can’t dismiss every source because you wanna delete a page. You dismiss local news, VICE, RCP, etc. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We should assume good faith and try and understand the logic behind why they want to delete the article. @Bobfrombrockley did say they want to keep the article. I agree with them and with you. So far only two people have argued in favor of deleting the article. Alleycat1995 (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:N as of now. Shankargb (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:N as of now. 1)  “All of the reliable sources about Hinkle are passing mentions and paragraphs that mention his anti-Israel and right-wing advocacy on Twitter. Very few sources actually establish his notability as a person in detail.”  It’d very clear that there are numerous reliable sources that are directly about Hinkle (not passing mentions) that establish his notability as a person. These sources are more than enough to meet the WP:N requirement that’s being called into question. Additionally, WP:BASIC states: “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.” Hinkle is someone who didn’t just come out of nowhere as a recent political figure. No not at all. In fact he is someone with a long history of political and social activism, being listed as one of the 17 most inspirational kids of 2017 by Reader’s Digest, , similarly with Teen Vogue also giving recognition to Hinkle, , he took part in a highly contested and heated 2019 city council election in the city of San Clemente on, later winning a third of the city, also his early life was highly reported on not leaving us with little info. If you look at this article you will see very little of it is taken up by his “anti-Israel” advocacy, he’s a independent journalist of course he has a focus on the Israel conflict, but that does not still come up as the majority of references of him.
 * ñWP:BASIC states “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.” This this indicates that even if there weren’t any sources directly about Hinkle (which there are), this article would actually still be notable as a result of multiple independent sources, I mean look at the CNN, Forbes, Times of Israel articles on his Israel reporting, he has been the main center of the article (in the CNN one he is referenced as the focus right alongside Musk) Hinkle has also been referenced by Colombian President Gustavo Petro due to his reporting as reported by Infobae article which focused heavily on Hinkle and explained who he is.
 * Out of the sources that are directly about Hinkle, only 7% (just one) of them are about his anti-Israel advocacy. And only 1 of these sources reference his advocacy as “right-wing”. To reduce the sources of this article to being “anti-Israel” and “right-wing advocacy on Twitter” is incorrect.
 * Hinkle is a notable figure, his early life, city council run, activism extensively covered, his show the Dive is also covered as are his debates with figures like Sam Seder, going on Tucker Carlson Tonight, being a leading figure at an rally in DC.
 * Furthermore I also agree with Alleycat1995 that it’s an oversimplification to say Jackson Hinkle “right-wing”. This is due to the variety of coverage about Hinkle, the fact that he is not labeled by a majority of RS as “right-wing”. Again as Alleycat1995 said “1 article describes him as right-wing, 2 articles describe him as Marxist, 2 articles describe him as conservative, 1 article describes him as progressive, 1 article describes him as “MAGA”, and 2 articles avoid giving him a label.”
 * 2)  “The VICE article mostly describes Haz and his far-right movement rather than Hinkle itself.”  I agree with Alleycat1995, the VICE article moves from Haz to Hinkle giving equal recognition and doesn’t describe the movement as far right but rather states that there is a possibility it could lead to the far right tendencies of MAGA coming up per se, thus describing it as far right violates WP:OR. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2023 (ET)
 * Copy-pasting from other comments is a bit redundant. VintageVernacular (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not even what happened you low tier troll Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Solidarityandfreedom, no personal attacks in discussions. It can also lead to other editors taking your comments less seriously and you being blocked from further participation in the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete The article's self-aggrandizing tone sets off alarm bells. Moreover it is claimed that Hinkle is an ML but it is not clear what party affiliation he has, if any. As far as notoriety goes, I am skeptical that appearing on TV a couple of times and being momentarily popular on X (née Twitter) due to the present war in Palestine amounts to WP:N. The latter especially is a form of WP:RECENTISM. I also find no indications of any Marxist bona fides. KetchupSalt (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "self-aggrandizing"? If there is evidence that Hinkle is not a "ML" (Marxism-Leninist), that should be discussed on the talk page. But regardless, the article not describing what political party he belongs to does not mean he isn't notable. He's notable because he has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." It's also incorrect to say that Hinkle has only "appeared on TV a couple of times" and is "momentarily popular on X". See the list of sources I provided above. Additionally, using the word "momentarily popular" assumes he will no longer receive attention after the conflict settles. There has been no discussion yet on whether the current article faces WP:RECENTISM. The Israel conflict has gained Hinkle more attention, but the article isn't focused entirely on that. The current weight seems fair in my opinion. There are 2 articles that describe Hinkle as a marxist. Alleycat1995 (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "self-aggrandizing"? The stuff about Haz and treating "MAGA communism" as anything but word salad. I see the Haz stuff has been removed. KetchupSalt (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "word salad" is something only Sam Seder has described Hinkle's interview on OANN. This view is not the consensus on MAGA Communism. So, describing it as something else is not self-aggrandizing. Alleycat1995 (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You ignore the many secondary RS articles covering his activism, his designation as one of 17 most inspirational kids by Reader’s Digest, the fact that his Israel views are only discussed briefly, the majority of articles linked are not about his twitter posts or TV appearances. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources indicate he is a Marxist. Your opinion literally doesn’t matter in regards to this. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand the confusion with his political stance. Personally I see him as just another far-right grifter that made up a the identity "MAGA Communism" for clout and probably doesn't really know what it's supposed to mean either, hence he doesn't come across as communist, but simply MAGA. Apparently he describes himself as a "American Conservative Marxist-Leninist" though.
 * I think Vice summarised it best "MAGA Communism has little ideological consistency, and can vibe with people who want to be edgy, on the political fringe.” Until last month he was all about Russia but that wasn't edgy enough, now he's all about Gaza, next he'll be 100% about whatever gives him coverage, especially if it's edgy in order to stay relevant. Now he has the following he does, I imagine he'll keep it.
 * My opinion literally doesn’t matter in regards to this, but thought the context "might" help here for keep current discussion. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep See this list of sources not yet used in the article. Needs a lot of work, but he's notable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep He's currently the most viral misinformation spreader on Twitter/X and getting coverage for it. See sources.
 * 1. https://www.thejc.com/news/world/who-is-jackson-hinkle-twitters-most-viral-misinformation-spreader-and-anti-israel-activist-3Zi4QV3sKIShrzZ6RHff9E
 * 2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/10/29/elon-musk-says-x-users-spreading-lies-wont-get-paid-for-those-tweets/
 * 3. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/twitter-hate-speech-accounts-palestine-clout-1234867382/ CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep subject clearly meets notability per all above no matter how you personally feel, though article needs massive rework. See Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.
 * Justanotherguy54 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed the POV on here is horrific. The length of the article is certainly based on how notable he wants to be, not how notable he actually is. Until a month ago he was more or less unheard of, hence why he faced little to no criticism I think. By now he could have his own Criticisms section based on his misinformation on Israel-Hamas conflict, especially given the bias already provided. I'm sure there's a lot more to come as well.
 * This source I noticed is used to reference his DOB, but has a lot more value than that in my opinion:
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/11/israel-hamas-fake-news-thrives-on-poorly-regulated-online-platforms CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you making an unfounded claim that he’s writing his own page?
 * ”The length of the article is certainly based on how notable he wants to be, not how notable he actually is.” Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hinkle was well known before the Gaza conflict:
 * On Tucker Carlson Tonight
 * VICE news coverage
 * leading speaker at Anti-Ukraine rally in DC
 * and more Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:N.--Mhorg (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2023
 * Keep I guess I´ll just agree the with essence with the points already expressed, in short if I were to give just a sentence, I would say that Jackson Hinkle is somebody is who is fairly idiosyncratic in his idea of "MAGA Communism" and that he has a large social media following, which may not be the reasons why Wikipedia would keep an article, but I see it as fit.
 * StrongALPHA (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep I find the other editors comments very reasonable, and my personal bias is that I've encountered his name multiple times on a wide array of different platforms. Herooow (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Keep'. Is definitely notable, but the article needs to more neutrally cover him, since it is currently massively tilted in a positive tone when many reliable sources point out the misinformation that he spreads. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep -- seems WP:N to me Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Keep as he had a strong presence in Google Trend last year, especially last month. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.