Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (4th 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 delete. This discussion is not a vote, but a method of establishing consensus by making convincing arguments in the light of Wikipedia's established policies and practices. It contains many "keep" opinions, but all of them must be disregarded because they do not address the reason for which deletion is requested. That reason is alleged lack of notability (WP:N) for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. In response to such a nomination, "keep" opinions must identify such coverage in order to be taken into account. But none do, as SportingFlyer points out. Instead we read things like "he's big on Youtube", "he's well known", "there are too many AfDs" and some personal attacks. The complaints about the previous AfDs, in particular, are not convincing because they all resulted in no consensus. None of these assertions address the nominator's contention that there are not enough reliable sources about this person for us to write an article about him. As such, I must treat this contention as unrebutted and therefore determinative for the outcome of this discussion.  Sandstein  20:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Kulinski
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no substantial RS coverage of this person, making it near-impossible to write a Wikipedia article on him. There are only four RS (per the RSP list) that mention Kulinski: two that list him as one of multiple founders of the Justice Democrats, and two Fox News pieces that note that he shared clips on Twitter defending Cenk Uygur. While the Justice Democrats are notable (as substantiated by RS coverage) and Cenk Uygur are notable (as substantiated by RS coverage), Kulinski is not (as shown by the dearth of RS coverage). A previous AfD discussion ended in "no consensus" because the subject of the article directed supporters to the AfD, creating absolute chaos in the AfD discussion. The first and second AfD discussions (which took place in 2017) were poorly attended and ended in "no consensus". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Snooganssnoogans' above comment and my previous vote KidAd (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, as he's the co-founder of the Justice Democrats & has appeared regularly on The Young Turks. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep see my previous comments at one of the other three AfDs. One just ended Dec 19. WP:DELAFD It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome. Lightburst (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The closer of the 3rd nomination suggested that a fourth AfD might be wise (for what it's worth, before the canvassing, the AfD vote was overwhelmingly heading towards Delete). I also brought this up on the Admin noticeboard. Nobody expressed opposition to re-doing the AfD. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete He failed WP:GNG at the last deletion discussion and unfortunately nothing has changed. Nothing I can find that's both substantial and independent. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 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). A search for sources found 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. [copied/adapted from what I said last time] &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with a redirect. I just can't see this being kept in good faith with the sources available. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I gave his name a search on Google News and Google Books, he seems to have coverage which passes GNG, but it's bordeline. If it's decided to that he does not pass GNG then I would side with Rhododendrites and say he should be redirected to Justice Democrats.★Trekker (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for the overwhelming reasons cited in the 3rd nomination, which was headed to a keep. Nothing has changed. Serial nominations are b.s. Wastes lots of valuable editor time.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Before the subject of the article and his Reddit fan-clubs directed people to the AfD, the tally was 6 delete votes and 1 keep vote. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You like to truncate the count, close the ballot box, toss the votes and choose the votes that suit your desired result. Your privilege I guess.  But it is both wrong and unprincipled.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 15:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The original sin is the serial nomination for delete by his hate club. Those WP:ACTIVISTs who are trashing consensus and attempting to impose their will to remove the article have not provided anything other than repetition and attrition. --Loginnigol (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the most notable YouTubers. Unreal7 (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the catual reliable sources do not mention Kulinski enough to establish notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Non-notable people do not inspire a firestorm of controversy on AfD pages. If anything, the multiple rounds of AfD indicate a large interest in the subject.  -Jord gette  [talk]  20:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Being able to successfully send your followers to disrupt an AfD is not an indicator of notability to me (if it were, it would set a bad precedent and encourage more of the same). There was no controversy on the 1st and 2nd AfD – they were just poorly attended and ended in 'no consensus'. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've made that opinion known several times. Others disagree with your assessment. What exactly is the upside of deleting an article that gets at minimum hundreds, at times many thousands, of visits per day?  -Jord gette  [talk]  22:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep On principle alone, closers should never listen to JPL above. He is a constant, serial Delete vote on virtually every article.  Its a thought-less reflex.  I'd rather not go into further ad hominem, but its there.  I'm well into my second decade of protecting content on wikipedia.  There aren't enough of us doing this vs the hordes of automatons, JPL being the worst example.  I got dragged into this years ago and have watched a lot of this activity.  The NOM of this article seems to be a leader of a movement trying to dismiss anything associated with the Justice Democrats, including its co-founder Kulinski.  A lot of (possibly paid) political operatives are pounding on any associate of another co-founder Cenk Uygur, now a congressional candidate and his extremely popular YouTube oriented network The Young Turks.  Kulinski's primary show is distributed on the network.  A lot of the sources reporting on Kulinski are part of the wave of "new media" outlets rather than old school sources, a concept which wikipedia needs to adapt to.  Instead, this group of editors, snoogans the most active this election cycle, have been using WP:WIKILAWYERING techniques to dismiss the significance of any sources associated with this "new media."     They will respond as wikilawyers here.  They blatantly remove content and sources, then report anything remaining as unsourced or poorly sourced.  Gee, now this article looks disreputable, better delete it.  And now after being rebuffed a third time, they didn't like mom's answer, so lets try again with dad.  WP:NPOV, WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.  Same editors, same techniques.  They just don't like the political content Mr. Kulinski, The Young Turks and the "Bernie Would Have Won" oriented progressive movement are presenting.  They are particularly aggressive now that Sanders is in the lead in 2020, slicing and dicing to remove as much of that content as possible across a variety of articles.  We can't let undecided voters see this.  Effectively, I believe you would call that censorship to fulfill an WP:AGENDA. Trackinfo (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying that an editor should be ignored, is thoughtless, has a political agenda, advocates for censorship, and might be engaging in UPE, certainly constitutes a personal attack. You should delete this comment.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at this: In the time it took me to write above, Articles for deletion/Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (3rd nomination) appeared, again.  Same stuff, different day.  And actually, because of the way that article has been perverted since its initial creation, I might just support deletion, in favor of recreating the proper version of that content. Trackinfo (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - It's remarkable that in lieu of any substance/sourcing, most of the keep !votes thus far are based entirely on ad hominem/wikilawyering, whether that those who don't think he should have a stand-alone article are part of some secret conspiracy, or pushing an agenda, or that it shouldn't have been renominated (despite the closing statement of the previous nom), or that someone's opinion should be discounted because they only !vote one way (which is technically true, but just an ad hominem, and ironically raised by someone who only !votes one way and misses the mark about three times as often). Still waiting for actual evidence of in depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject that justify a stand-alone article rather than inheriting notability from the org he founded... (also, btw, I had never heard of this person until coming across the AfD -- I often look through relisted/renominated XfDs) &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I first heard of Kyle Kulinski just before I created the 3rd AfD nomination (I didn't nominate him the 1st and 2nd time). I wanted to learn more about him, found that his Wikipedia page was entirely barren of reliable content, and that I was incapable of finding any RS content to actually add to his page. Thus, I nominated the page for deletion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I also wasn't familiar with him either until the last nomination. As someone who votes at a lot of political AfDs, he simply does not meet our requirements based on the available sourcing. If there's someone who wants to bring sources to the discussion, I'd be happy to listen. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just added more sources that these other people somehow can't seem to find. I think I've already added ten to this article.  I've seen the substance behind the subject.  I've also watched the unwarranted attacks on this content and above have reported on the patterns of behavior that would become obvious to any unclouded observer.  I've developed quite a sarcastic attitude to the repetition.  Here we go again. Trackinfo (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Snoogans is so aggressive in his attempt to deplete this article of sources, that here he deleted a segment discussing the oft quoted tweets by Kulinski, including a piece by the Washington Examiner that spends several paragraphs attacking Kulinski, because the sources quote tweets. How absurd is that?  Contemporary "new media' stars use tweets and other social media to expand their message.  The fact that sources quote those tweets show their significance well above and beyond some bozo telling what he ate for dinner.  The current president rules by tweet.  He literally tells his every thought by tweet.  Stephen Colbert spends more than half his monologue quoting those tweets every night.  Are you going to AfD Colbert now? Trackinfo (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you added are reliable sources. They're either retweets or very brief mentions that he has a show. There's still nothing in the article that passes WP:GNG. You're also welcome to link to the sources in this AfD discussion so we can review them more easily if you find any more. SportingFlyer  T · C  08:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're really bringing in another ad hominem because snoogans removed this?? To an already contentious subject you added an opinion column in the Washington Examiner in which the author says nothing at all about Kulinski apart from using his tweet to make point? Even if it were a good source, it doesn't do anything for notability. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Would the Washington Examiner spend its time trashing a tweet by a non-notable bum off the street? Of course not.  They raised his tweet as a (negative) example because he was a significant political commentator from the opposite persuasion. Trackinfo (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not significant coverage, which doesn't contribute to notability. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no notability criterion of "has written a tweet that annoyed someone at the Washington Examiner enough to write up a little rant about it". So many of these !votes are trying to find a good indicator of notability (number of subscribers, a tweet being responded to in the Examiner, etc.) but nobody has actually found notability in the form of in-depth coverage in good sources. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post refers to him as a "internet idol." Is that a reliable source? Trackinfo (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That article doesn't count towards WP:GNG since it only name-drops him once, and we require coverage to be significant. But it is reliable, and if you can find a couple more like those which discuss him significantly, that would change the nature of the discussion. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Well-known in political and media spheres, highly influential, and ever-increasing media presence. This article literally just survived another deletion nomination, and has been nominated repeatedly in the past yet remained. Use to repeat nominations to hinder productivity, and even punitively (threatening another burecratic nomination if other people edit the article in a way they don't like) is inappropriate and problematic IMHO.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Request - Per WP:THREE, would an editor please list the best 3 sources which provide substantial, independent, secondary coverage of the article subject? - Ryk72 talk 09:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep If you don't like how the previous AFD ended, the same editor who nominated it shouldn't be able to do it yet again a month later. This is ridiculous!  This should be closed for wasting everyone's time.  Also the article says he has over 645 million YouTube views, so he easily passes the subject specific guideline for WP:ENTERTAINER. "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."   D r e a m Focus  15:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly passes WP:GNG and he is a well known political journalist who also got fame for criticising Trump's administration. Wikipedia has a list of articles about commentators and journalists who might not have even passed WP:GNG. The subject is notable enough but the article needs much improvement and work. Abishe (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I've wondered why we had no article on this guy.  Now I'm starting to understand a few things...  I'm not knowledgeable enough to have anything new to add, but will instead refer to editor Trackinfo where I learned a lot... Like many young articles, it can use some improvement. Gandydancer (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Snooganssnoogans, Rhododendrites, SportingFlyer. Ryk72 and John Pack Lambert have made good points in their review of the reliable sources. This is not significant coverage. We don't go by total views,the total subscribers is still under 1 million which makes it a minor channel in YouTube terms. There simply isn't enough reliably sourced content yet for an encyclopedia article. Kulinski may generate enough press to meet WP:GNG in the future but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Dartslilly (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I !voted to Delete in the last AfD due to the lack of reliable significant coverage. Again, I still think this is the case in this situation as the subject as not reached significant coverage from reliable sources. However, the fact this has been nominated so soon after the last AfD in an attempt to get it deleted does not sit well with me.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is mentioned above, but the admin who closed the previous nomination was explicit about this in the closing statement: perhaps folks could also consider a new AFD discussion that is protected from the get-go. That's what this is. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly doesn't meet GNG. Redirect to Justice Democrats would make sense. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The claim above that I always vote delete is demonstrably false. The ad hominen attacks on well reasoned votes is unjustified, and the beligerent's towards people who do not let Wikipedia be filled up with poorly sourced articles on people of non-notability is unjustified. Well, I should say who seek to change the status quo of Wikipedia being filled with poorly sourced articles on non-notable living individuals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There's still not a single keep !voter here who has discussed which sources actually show notability. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, like, all of them . . . and all of the censored deleted ones are well. We have a swath of sources that were removed because they quoted tweets.  That is a large part of what Kulinski does to promote his show.  His tweets would not be quoted by other Reliable sources unless they were relevant and he was a notable figure. Trackinfo (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's not true about the sources. There are currently five links to external pages on this page and only one of them is to a source which only mentioned him in passing. Tweets are primary and are in no way reliable, and you're even admitting they're purely promotional. Neither of those demonstrate notability. There's not much that's been changed since the last AfD, which the closer noted was much closer to delete in spite of the canvassing concerns. If you want to post sources that pass WP:GNG, I'd be happy to review them, but not a single keep !voter has done that so far. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * These articles are reviewed and maintained by a team of volunteers. These sources don't show the kind of the significant coverage editors want for biographies about living persons. BLPs require more community resources to maintain than probably any other type of article and that this one is mostly promotional at this stage is not even being disputed. It's just TOOSOON. Dartslilly (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.