![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Discussion moved to User talk:Trackinfo/Kyle Kulinski. EllenCT ( talk) 18:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Draft:Kyle Kulinski has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
[[:Category:1988 births]] [[:Category:21st-century American journalists]] [[:Category:21st-century atheists]] [[:Category:Activists from New Rochelle, New York]] [[:Category:American agnostics]] [[:Category:American anti-war activists]] [[:Category:American atheists]] [[:Category:American humanists]] [[:Category:American male journalists]] [[:Category:American media critics]] [[:Category:American online journalists]] [[:Category:American people of Italian descent]] [[:Category:American people of Polish descent]] [[:Category:American podcasters]] [[:Category:American political journalists]] [[:Category:American political commentators]] [[:Category:American radio DJs]] [[:Category:American radio producers]] [[:Category:American secularists]] [[:Category:American skeptics]] [[:Category:American social commentators]] [[:Category:American social democrats]] [[:Category:American talk radio hosts]] [[:Category:American web producers]] [[:Category:American YouTubers]] [[:Category:Criticism of political correctness]] [[:Category:Critics of religions]] [[:Category:Free speech activists]] [[:Category:Iona College (New York) alumni]] [[:Category:Journalists from New York (state)]] [[:Category:Left-libertarians]] [[:Category:Left-wing populism in the United States]] [[:Category:Living people]] [[:Category:Male YouTubers]] [[:Category:New York (state) Democrats]] [[:Category:New York (state) Independents]] [[:Category:Non-interventionism]] [[:Category:Opinion journalists]] [[:Category:Religious skeptics]] [[:Category:Secular humanists]] [[:Category:Social critics]] [[:Category:The Young Turks (talk show)]]
to
{{Draft categories|1= [[Category:1988 births]] [[Category:21st-century American journalists]] [[Category:21st-century atheists]] [[Category:Activists from New Rochelle, New York]] [[Category:American agnostics]] [[Category:American anti-war activists]] [[Category:American atheists]] [[Category:American humanists]] [[Category:American male journalists]] [[Category:American media critics]] [[Category:American online journalists]] [[Category:American people of Italian descent]] [[Category:American people of Polish descent]] [[Category:American podcasters]] [[Category:American political journalists]] [[Category:American political commentators]] [[Category:American radio DJs]] [[Category:American radio producers]] [[Category:American secularists]] [[Category:American skeptics]] [[Category:American social commentators]] [[Category:American social democrats]] [[Category:American talk radio hosts]] [[Category:American web producers]] [[Category:American YouTubers]] [[Category:Criticism of political correctness]] [[Category:Critics of religions]] [[Category:Free speech activists]] [[Category:Iona College (New York) alumni]] [[Category:Journalists from New York (state)]] [[Category:Left-libertarians]] [[Category:Left-wing populism in the United States]] [[Category:Living people]] [[Category:Male YouTubers]] [[Category:New York (state) Democrats]] [[Category:New York (state) Independents]] [[Category:Non-interventionism]] [[Category:Opinion journalists]] [[Category:Religious skeptics]] [[Category:Secular humanists]] [[Category:Social critics]] [[Category:The Young Turks (talk show)]] }}
KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 17:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
His notability is evident in his numbers, I don't understand how suppressing him is allowed? I am not naive to agendas against progressive thought but Kyle is a pretty standard Leftist, but with a large following and clearly more influential than 100s of other individuals that I could name who happily have a Wikipedia article made public. Sort out your drama, nobody cares. Officially Mr X ( talk) 22:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I came to this article via Page Curation. I can see why it has been such a struggle to get it out of draft. The article sprawls, and there is no clear indication which sources best attest to this subject's notability. To aid review, could an editor who is familiar with this subject identify the three Reliable Sources which best indicate this subject's notability? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 14:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
For the love of Christ how many more articles do you need? Here is a new one by the Washington Examiner describing Joe Rogan's election night event which will feature Kyle Kulinski ( https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/plot-twist-joe-rogan-announces-election-special-featuring-alex-jones-and-kyle-kulinski). In case you didn't know, THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE IS THE MOST POPULAR PODCAST ON THE PLANET AND KYLE HAS BEEN ON IT 3 TIMES ALREADY!!!
It's an absolute travesty that a political commentator with a Youtube channel with nearly a million subscribers and videos which have an average of tens of thousands of views per video is still not on the English Wikipedia, despite it having an article in numerous other languages (despite the fact that Kyle Kulinski is an AMERICAN).
Come at me Sandstein, Robert McClenon, Cryptic, Snooganssnoogans, Phil Bridger, Praxidicae, Rhododendrites, and the like.
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is not significant coverage, as expanded at that guideline. - Ryk72 talk 22:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Aren't those weasel words?They certainly are. I don't have a problem with the WE. I recognise that other editors do. The issue that I see with this source, and raised above, is that it does not provide significant coverage of the article subject.
The man interviewed Senator Bernie Sanders on his show, a candidate for President who nearly won the Democratic primary for God's sake. He was the first guest on Glenn Greenwald's podcast. He has been a reoccurring contributor on The Young Turks and The Hill's Rising program.And yet, there appears to have been very little written about him. - Ryk72 talk 02:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
if the entire article is about the subjects (Kulinskis) reactionIt's not.
He is the focus of that article...He's not. The article is about a prospective Joe Rogan podcast on US Election Day. To ask another question: For what information about "Kyle Kulinski", that might reasonably appear in an encyclopaedia, could this article be used as a source? If the answer is not much, it's not significant coverage. - Ryk72 talk 05:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Great news! I just found Kulinski's Wikidata item ( Q29833619). This should improve notability of the article greatly and make it easier to push it out of draft stage. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 02:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I went to create this article today, and I found this draft. Great job on the draft, guys. This is a thoroughly fleshed out article and much better than anything I could have written from scratch.
I'm surprised that an article with FIFTY THREE SOURCES IN IT is judged as being non-notable and unable to survive AfD. Bummer. If you make another push to publish this, let me know. I definitely think he is notable.
A similar article on a progressive pundit that has less sources but that is fully published: Krystal Ball – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Holy, I came across this draft and was shocked that a draft of this detail and with this number of sources was rejected this many times. I understand the subject is a political figure, I don't know how much that is playing into all this, but I noticed the primary issue draft reviewers had was a (lack of / unclear) notability from sources. For some elucidation, I'm outlining the sources on the list in which the subject is addressed in some degree of detail in hopes to help to refine the article.
I think after actually looking through these sources the problem with the article is clearer. The majority of substantive sources are really just quoting or featuring Kulinski as an opinion piece, rather than actually covering him. So far as reliable, secondary sources go, you really only have the Jacobin article that covers Kulinski in any substantive manner without just being him speaking or echoing what he has said. Kulinski seems to be one of those subjects that you think really should be found notable, but doesn't gel well with Wikipedia's guidelines because of the type of coverage he gets.
That said, guidelines are just that, and I personally think that even just this list should be sufficient to establish broad significant coverage. Guidelines aside, its clear that the subject is a prominent political figure that is regularly featured/quoted in the media. As others have pointed out, equivalent/similar figures have articles with a lesser degrees of coverage. While he may have been a case of WP:TOOSOON when the draft was first submitted, I think the magnitude of recent coverage should belay that issue. If not, this subject really only needs one or two more good sources before his inclusion into the mainspace is inarguable. ƒin ( talk) 07:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
People here seem to forget about:
With the Jacobin Article, the Santa Clarita Gazette Article, and the three Inquisitr articles, Kyle Kulinski meets WP:GNG. I don't think this is debatable. All that is needed is to integrate the two drafts and resubmit.
To sway the admins, we could have everyone who worked on this article and draft submit a reason why they feel this article should be published, and what changed since the article was deleted. If we wait too long, other half-baked submissions will be made like the September one that will weaken our case. Mottezen ( talk) 01:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? - Ryk72 talk 09:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Having two drafts may be confusing and create double work. I'd like to propose that we make all edits to this draft and this talk page from now on. I bring this up because somebody is suggesting that we make edits to a different draft above. Thoughts? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I asked Trackinfo one time, and I don't think he would be onboard with any redirects or deletion of content on his end (the Trackinfo draft and Trackinfo draft talk). Just FYI. I think just agreeing to edit this copy for now is probably the best we can do. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 04:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
With the recent changes to the draft, I believe that it is now in a state such that its inclusion into the mainspace is inarguable. I think a combination of bloated references and the unconventional nature of this particular niche of political coverage means that this draft has had a difficult time being approved. However, the fairly substantial coverage of Kulinski during the 2020 US election has certainly belied the notability issues of the original article prior to deletion. We cannot have a situation where editors are continually resubmitting over the course of months, as this will further delegitimise the draft, so I want to establish a consensus here.
For the record, these five articles [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] are those sources considered to "demonstrate that this person has been the subject of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources". Each is a secondary source from established news publications where Kulinski is the main subject of the article. These sources are just the primary indicators of WP:SIGCOV, however, and sit on top of the existing mountain of sources wherein Kulinski is quoted, or interviewed extensively, such as his appearances on Fox News, The Hill's Rising, and the Joe Rogan podcast, to name a few.
Based on a reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia's WP:GNG guidelines, this degree of coverage is, in my opinion, clearly sufficient to establish notability.
Are there any disagreements or concerns with this reasoning? Personally I think this whole process suffers the messy haze that several AfDs and Draft Submisions have resulted in. For some perspective, I recently worked on creating Emily VanDerWerff, a figure with a comparably lower degree of coverage than Kulinski, and her inclusion into Wikipedia is not questioned.
ƒin ( talk) 13:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I think this draft (and the article in question) is ready to be passed to the main namespace. And I am extremely surprised it hasn't already. Kyle Kulinski easily passes WP:GNG and only hasn't made it past the draft namespace because of weird deletionists/perfectionists. Instead of submitting it however, I am going to ask everyone interested in the article to make suggestions on how to fix it (we will follow those suggestions) and also replace all the sources linked to Kulinski's YouTube channel. I do not wish to see it be deleted, so I will ask everyone like how Salimfadhley said we should. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 19:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Does anybody have reliable sources that report on Kyle's high YouTube views/subscribers, or generally speak about him having a "large fan base" or "cult following"? If we could find an RS or two that say this, he might qualify for inclusion under WP:ENTERTAINER #2. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability is an essay, not a policy or guideline. But it states WP:N says that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if ... it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline" one of which is WP:ENT. However, in practice, editors involved in deletion debates consider that a YouTuber needs to meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT.
Do we believe this information to be accurate? If so, it could mean that we should stop spending time on looking for WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE stuff, and we are stuck waiting for GNG to be met. That is, waiting for SIGCOV in a 2nd RS. (The 1st SIGCOV in RS being the Jacobin article.) – Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any reliable sources that would help Kyle qualify under
WP:CREATIVE? Any one of the following (backed up by strong sources): Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. 3) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4) The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
–
Novem Linguae (
talk)
15:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we’re mixing up InfluenceWatch’s agenda, which is clearly conservative, to why it considers Kulinski as “notable” enough to create a profile. It would be quite ironic that a left wing commentator would author their profile for a right leaning think-tank.
Do we need an author for this source? Please point me to the guidance that says a source needs to declare who the author of a profile should be. This is not a news artiIcle. We know who the publisher is and their bias.
Regarding independence I said it “appears to make an effort to be independent” not that it was independent. The InfluenceWatch statement says:
“Capital Research Center conceived of this project after identifying a need for more fact-based, accurate descriptions of all of the various influencers of public policy issues. Many so-called “watchdog” groups are instead opponents...”
“InfluenceWatch strives to be comprehensive, and profiles will be frequently updated and written in a manner that’s accurate and measured...”
Whether you agree with these statements is a different matter (and I don’t wish to digress discussing them). The site is quite transparent with its own sources and provides citations.
I note that editors in the RSNB were unable to provide citations to to back up their own remarks. Regardless of what you think about InfluenceWatch, is the profile enough evidence to show Kulinski’s notability? -- NoMagicSpells talk 06:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
3. https://www.patreon.com/seculartalk His website, not independent. No
4. https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/seculartalk Data. Not a secondary source, no commentary. No.Please clarify how you came to this conclusion based on what was written in the profile? We’re also trying to assess if the article is evidence of Kulinski’s notability. -- NoMagicSpells talk 18:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I’ll add a few more reliable source links for editors to consider regarding Kulinski’s notability as a creative/entertainer:
SLATE
Kulinski mentioned as a “leftist media personality” here:
https://slate.com/technology/2020/09/peace-data-russia-disinformation-facebook.html
RECLAIM THE NET
Why was this overlooked? It may not be about him but it identifies him as a “popular YouTuber” and content creator who received a copyright strike from CNN.
Kulinski is mentioned as a creative here:
https://reclaimthenet.org/cnn-twitch-youtube-copyright-claims-presidential-debates/
CNN
Another editor mentioned they had added this CNN article reference, but I can’t find this in the draft. Appears that an administrator removed it when a previous submission was rejected.
Kulinski is mentioned as a “prominent liberal and YouTube host”.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/15/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-debate-2020/index.html
MASHABLE
Why was this overlooked? I can’t find this ref in any version of the draft. He is noted as a “YouTube creator” here:
https://mashable.com/article/youtube-coronavirus-content-moderation/?europe=true
“Kulinski’s Secular Talk, with more than 800,000 subscribers, is one of the most popular political commentary channels on the platform.”
Wouldn’t this sentence from the Mashable article above have pushed Kulinski’s notability over the “borderline GNG”? — NoMagicSpells talk 17:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.Or do we need SIGCOV for that as well? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
"Another popular YouTuber who was hit with a CNN copyright claim is Kyle Kulinski. Kulinski hosts a news and politics show and says that CNN has claimed the ad revenue on most of his videos discussing the debates. These videos have generated hundreds of thousands of views which likely equates to hundreds of dollars in ad revenue that has been claimed by CNN."Is that enough to meet the GNG's requirement ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, .... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Maybe. I expect more at AfD would say that these words do not amount to significant coverage.
Not independent of the subject. The subject is providing the article content.
Is https://www.influencewatch.org/person/kyle-kulinski/ independent of Kyle Kulinski? I think it must be presumed not. I think it is either user-generated (it is anonymously authored), or it was written by an agent of Kyle. I wrote to Influence Watch asking about the authorship of the article, but received no response. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I have removed the links to his YouTube videos. I will explain all of them:
And with that, I've just covered the whole "linking to his YouTube channel" problem. This article is easily be a stub or start, but the draft reviewers won't even let us pass it unless it reaches around C-Class or B-Class. This is just ridiculous. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 23:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
”...distracted by passing mentions and sources which are not independent of the article subject”This remark makes no sense. Is it even a sentence? -- NoMagicSpells talk 01:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
”Primary sources source facts, secondary sources source opinion/analysis/comment. Gibberish again! -- NoMagicSpells talk 01:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
“...there is probably no point talking to you”That’s a very good suggestion. Nobody should talk to SmokeyJoe. -- NoMagicSpells talk 02:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Guys, Wikipedia's notability policy is extremely complicated. There is GNG and like 12 SNG's. GNG looks simple, but once you start getting involved in AFD's, you discover that it is interpreted very strictly, and any little problem can disqualify a source. At this point I've concluded that it is imperative to find and listen to experts on notability policy. Those experts are basically admins and new page patrollers, such as SmokeyJoe. We can make our own arguments, but at the end of the day if our arguments are out of alignment with the norms of AFD, they will simply be ignored by the closer. Ignoring SmokeyJoe would be like a defendant in court ignoring the advice of their lawyer. When law or policy is complicated, experts must be listened to. I for one am very appreciative that SmokeyJoe has taken quite a bit of time to deeply analyze our sources and provide expert and realistic advice. The points he's brought up are likely to be exactly what will be brought up if this article goes back to AFD or AFC. Have a look at this page to get an idea of the science behind evaluating GNG sources. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
In cutting low quality material, I cut
On January 1, 2021, Kulinski with Krystal Ball of Rising with the Hill's Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti from The Hill launched a new podcast called Krystal Kyle and Friends. The first episode featured Marianne Williamson, a 2020 Democratic Presidential primary candidate.
Ref = https://krystalkyleandfriends.substack.com/p/happy2021
This is promotion, it can find its way back in with more care, independent sourcing is required. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The following is a nice story, but it is low level incidental. This is not what Kyle is famous for.
In December 2019, the The New York Times published an article about Uygur that was factually incorrect and portrayed Uygur in a negative light.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Medina|first1=Jennifer|date=13 December 2019|title=Bernie Sanders Retracts Endorsement of Cenk Uygur After Criticism|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-cenk-uygur.html|accessdate=19 December 2019|website=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> Kulinski organized a campaign, encouraging people to contact The Times and ask for a correction.
<ref>{{Cite web|last=Wulfsohn|first=Joseph|date=December 16, 2019|title=Cenk Uygyr slams 'unconscionable' NY Times report suggesting he defended David Duke, calling it a 'lie'|url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/cenk-uygyr-david-duke-new-york-times-lie|website=[[Fox News]]}}</ref> The campaign was successful, and ''The New York Times'' issued a correction.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Wulfsohn|first1=Joseph|date=16 December 2019|title=New York Times issues correction after suggesting Cenk Uygur defended David Duke|url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-times-issues-correction-after-wrongfully-suggesting-cenk-uygur-defended-david-duke|accessdate=20 December 2019|website=[[Fox News]]}}</ref>
Maybe this can come back in if the article is agreed to be notable. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Discussion moved to User talk:Trackinfo/Kyle Kulinski. EllenCT ( talk) 18:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Draft:Kyle Kulinski has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
[[:Category:1988 births]] [[:Category:21st-century American journalists]] [[:Category:21st-century atheists]] [[:Category:Activists from New Rochelle, New York]] [[:Category:American agnostics]] [[:Category:American anti-war activists]] [[:Category:American atheists]] [[:Category:American humanists]] [[:Category:American male journalists]] [[:Category:American media critics]] [[:Category:American online journalists]] [[:Category:American people of Italian descent]] [[:Category:American people of Polish descent]] [[:Category:American podcasters]] [[:Category:American political journalists]] [[:Category:American political commentators]] [[:Category:American radio DJs]] [[:Category:American radio producers]] [[:Category:American secularists]] [[:Category:American skeptics]] [[:Category:American social commentators]] [[:Category:American social democrats]] [[:Category:American talk radio hosts]] [[:Category:American web producers]] [[:Category:American YouTubers]] [[:Category:Criticism of political correctness]] [[:Category:Critics of religions]] [[:Category:Free speech activists]] [[:Category:Iona College (New York) alumni]] [[:Category:Journalists from New York (state)]] [[:Category:Left-libertarians]] [[:Category:Left-wing populism in the United States]] [[:Category:Living people]] [[:Category:Male YouTubers]] [[:Category:New York (state) Democrats]] [[:Category:New York (state) Independents]] [[:Category:Non-interventionism]] [[:Category:Opinion journalists]] [[:Category:Religious skeptics]] [[:Category:Secular humanists]] [[:Category:Social critics]] [[:Category:The Young Turks (talk show)]]
to
{{Draft categories|1= [[Category:1988 births]] [[Category:21st-century American journalists]] [[Category:21st-century atheists]] [[Category:Activists from New Rochelle, New York]] [[Category:American agnostics]] [[Category:American anti-war activists]] [[Category:American atheists]] [[Category:American humanists]] [[Category:American male journalists]] [[Category:American media critics]] [[Category:American online journalists]] [[Category:American people of Italian descent]] [[Category:American people of Polish descent]] [[Category:American podcasters]] [[Category:American political journalists]] [[Category:American political commentators]] [[Category:American radio DJs]] [[Category:American radio producers]] [[Category:American secularists]] [[Category:American skeptics]] [[Category:American social commentators]] [[Category:American social democrats]] [[Category:American talk radio hosts]] [[Category:American web producers]] [[Category:American YouTubers]] [[Category:Criticism of political correctness]] [[Category:Critics of religions]] [[Category:Free speech activists]] [[Category:Iona College (New York) alumni]] [[Category:Journalists from New York (state)]] [[Category:Left-libertarians]] [[Category:Left-wing populism in the United States]] [[Category:Living people]] [[Category:Male YouTubers]] [[Category:New York (state) Democrats]] [[Category:New York (state) Independents]] [[Category:Non-interventionism]] [[Category:Opinion journalists]] [[Category:Religious skeptics]] [[Category:Secular humanists]] [[Category:Social critics]] [[Category:The Young Turks (talk show)]] }}
KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 17:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
His notability is evident in his numbers, I don't understand how suppressing him is allowed? I am not naive to agendas against progressive thought but Kyle is a pretty standard Leftist, but with a large following and clearly more influential than 100s of other individuals that I could name who happily have a Wikipedia article made public. Sort out your drama, nobody cares. Officially Mr X ( talk) 22:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I came to this article via Page Curation. I can see why it has been such a struggle to get it out of draft. The article sprawls, and there is no clear indication which sources best attest to this subject's notability. To aid review, could an editor who is familiar with this subject identify the three Reliable Sources which best indicate this subject's notability? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 14:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
For the love of Christ how many more articles do you need? Here is a new one by the Washington Examiner describing Joe Rogan's election night event which will feature Kyle Kulinski ( https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/plot-twist-joe-rogan-announces-election-special-featuring-alex-jones-and-kyle-kulinski). In case you didn't know, THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE IS THE MOST POPULAR PODCAST ON THE PLANET AND KYLE HAS BEEN ON IT 3 TIMES ALREADY!!!
It's an absolute travesty that a political commentator with a Youtube channel with nearly a million subscribers and videos which have an average of tens of thousands of views per video is still not on the English Wikipedia, despite it having an article in numerous other languages (despite the fact that Kyle Kulinski is an AMERICAN).
Come at me Sandstein, Robert McClenon, Cryptic, Snooganssnoogans, Phil Bridger, Praxidicae, Rhododendrites, and the like.
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is not significant coverage, as expanded at that guideline. - Ryk72 talk 22:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Aren't those weasel words?They certainly are. I don't have a problem with the WE. I recognise that other editors do. The issue that I see with this source, and raised above, is that it does not provide significant coverage of the article subject.
The man interviewed Senator Bernie Sanders on his show, a candidate for President who nearly won the Democratic primary for God's sake. He was the first guest on Glenn Greenwald's podcast. He has been a reoccurring contributor on The Young Turks and The Hill's Rising program.And yet, there appears to have been very little written about him. - Ryk72 talk 02:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
if the entire article is about the subjects (Kulinskis) reactionIt's not.
He is the focus of that article...He's not. The article is about a prospective Joe Rogan podcast on US Election Day. To ask another question: For what information about "Kyle Kulinski", that might reasonably appear in an encyclopaedia, could this article be used as a source? If the answer is not much, it's not significant coverage. - Ryk72 talk 05:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Great news! I just found Kulinski's Wikidata item ( Q29833619). This should improve notability of the article greatly and make it easier to push it out of draft stage. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 02:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I went to create this article today, and I found this draft. Great job on the draft, guys. This is a thoroughly fleshed out article and much better than anything I could have written from scratch.
I'm surprised that an article with FIFTY THREE SOURCES IN IT is judged as being non-notable and unable to survive AfD. Bummer. If you make another push to publish this, let me know. I definitely think he is notable.
A similar article on a progressive pundit that has less sources but that is fully published: Krystal Ball – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Holy, I came across this draft and was shocked that a draft of this detail and with this number of sources was rejected this many times. I understand the subject is a political figure, I don't know how much that is playing into all this, but I noticed the primary issue draft reviewers had was a (lack of / unclear) notability from sources. For some elucidation, I'm outlining the sources on the list in which the subject is addressed in some degree of detail in hopes to help to refine the article.
I think after actually looking through these sources the problem with the article is clearer. The majority of substantive sources are really just quoting or featuring Kulinski as an opinion piece, rather than actually covering him. So far as reliable, secondary sources go, you really only have the Jacobin article that covers Kulinski in any substantive manner without just being him speaking or echoing what he has said. Kulinski seems to be one of those subjects that you think really should be found notable, but doesn't gel well with Wikipedia's guidelines because of the type of coverage he gets.
That said, guidelines are just that, and I personally think that even just this list should be sufficient to establish broad significant coverage. Guidelines aside, its clear that the subject is a prominent political figure that is regularly featured/quoted in the media. As others have pointed out, equivalent/similar figures have articles with a lesser degrees of coverage. While he may have been a case of WP:TOOSOON when the draft was first submitted, I think the magnitude of recent coverage should belay that issue. If not, this subject really only needs one or two more good sources before his inclusion into the mainspace is inarguable. ƒin ( talk) 07:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
People here seem to forget about:
With the Jacobin Article, the Santa Clarita Gazette Article, and the three Inquisitr articles, Kyle Kulinski meets WP:GNG. I don't think this is debatable. All that is needed is to integrate the two drafts and resubmit.
To sway the admins, we could have everyone who worked on this article and draft submit a reason why they feel this article should be published, and what changed since the article was deleted. If we wait too long, other half-baked submissions will be made like the September one that will weaken our case. Mottezen ( talk) 01:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? - Ryk72 talk 09:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Having two drafts may be confusing and create double work. I'd like to propose that we make all edits to this draft and this talk page from now on. I bring this up because somebody is suggesting that we make edits to a different draft above. Thoughts? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I asked Trackinfo one time, and I don't think he would be onboard with any redirects or deletion of content on his end (the Trackinfo draft and Trackinfo draft talk). Just FYI. I think just agreeing to edit this copy for now is probably the best we can do. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 04:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
With the recent changes to the draft, I believe that it is now in a state such that its inclusion into the mainspace is inarguable. I think a combination of bloated references and the unconventional nature of this particular niche of political coverage means that this draft has had a difficult time being approved. However, the fairly substantial coverage of Kulinski during the 2020 US election has certainly belied the notability issues of the original article prior to deletion. We cannot have a situation where editors are continually resubmitting over the course of months, as this will further delegitimise the draft, so I want to establish a consensus here.
For the record, these five articles [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] are those sources considered to "demonstrate that this person has been the subject of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources". Each is a secondary source from established news publications where Kulinski is the main subject of the article. These sources are just the primary indicators of WP:SIGCOV, however, and sit on top of the existing mountain of sources wherein Kulinski is quoted, or interviewed extensively, such as his appearances on Fox News, The Hill's Rising, and the Joe Rogan podcast, to name a few.
Based on a reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia's WP:GNG guidelines, this degree of coverage is, in my opinion, clearly sufficient to establish notability.
Are there any disagreements or concerns with this reasoning? Personally I think this whole process suffers the messy haze that several AfDs and Draft Submisions have resulted in. For some perspective, I recently worked on creating Emily VanDerWerff, a figure with a comparably lower degree of coverage than Kulinski, and her inclusion into Wikipedia is not questioned.
ƒin ( talk) 13:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I think this draft (and the article in question) is ready to be passed to the main namespace. And I am extremely surprised it hasn't already. Kyle Kulinski easily passes WP:GNG and only hasn't made it past the draft namespace because of weird deletionists/perfectionists. Instead of submitting it however, I am going to ask everyone interested in the article to make suggestions on how to fix it (we will follow those suggestions) and also replace all the sources linked to Kulinski's YouTube channel. I do not wish to see it be deleted, so I will ask everyone like how Salimfadhley said we should. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 19:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Does anybody have reliable sources that report on Kyle's high YouTube views/subscribers, or generally speak about him having a "large fan base" or "cult following"? If we could find an RS or two that say this, he might qualify for inclusion under WP:ENTERTAINER #2. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability is an essay, not a policy or guideline. But it states WP:N says that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if ... it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline" one of which is WP:ENT. However, in practice, editors involved in deletion debates consider that a YouTuber needs to meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT.
Do we believe this information to be accurate? If so, it could mean that we should stop spending time on looking for WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE stuff, and we are stuck waiting for GNG to be met. That is, waiting for SIGCOV in a 2nd RS. (The 1st SIGCOV in RS being the Jacobin article.) – Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any reliable sources that would help Kyle qualify under
WP:CREATIVE? Any one of the following (backed up by strong sources): Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. 3) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4) The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
–
Novem Linguae (
talk)
15:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we’re mixing up InfluenceWatch’s agenda, which is clearly conservative, to why it considers Kulinski as “notable” enough to create a profile. It would be quite ironic that a left wing commentator would author their profile for a right leaning think-tank.
Do we need an author for this source? Please point me to the guidance that says a source needs to declare who the author of a profile should be. This is not a news artiIcle. We know who the publisher is and their bias.
Regarding independence I said it “appears to make an effort to be independent” not that it was independent. The InfluenceWatch statement says:
“Capital Research Center conceived of this project after identifying a need for more fact-based, accurate descriptions of all of the various influencers of public policy issues. Many so-called “watchdog” groups are instead opponents...”
“InfluenceWatch strives to be comprehensive, and profiles will be frequently updated and written in a manner that’s accurate and measured...”
Whether you agree with these statements is a different matter (and I don’t wish to digress discussing them). The site is quite transparent with its own sources and provides citations.
I note that editors in the RSNB were unable to provide citations to to back up their own remarks. Regardless of what you think about InfluenceWatch, is the profile enough evidence to show Kulinski’s notability? -- NoMagicSpells talk 06:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
3. https://www.patreon.com/seculartalk His website, not independent. No
4. https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/seculartalk Data. Not a secondary source, no commentary. No.Please clarify how you came to this conclusion based on what was written in the profile? We’re also trying to assess if the article is evidence of Kulinski’s notability. -- NoMagicSpells talk 18:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I’ll add a few more reliable source links for editors to consider regarding Kulinski’s notability as a creative/entertainer:
SLATE
Kulinski mentioned as a “leftist media personality” here:
https://slate.com/technology/2020/09/peace-data-russia-disinformation-facebook.html
RECLAIM THE NET
Why was this overlooked? It may not be about him but it identifies him as a “popular YouTuber” and content creator who received a copyright strike from CNN.
Kulinski is mentioned as a creative here:
https://reclaimthenet.org/cnn-twitch-youtube-copyright-claims-presidential-debates/
CNN
Another editor mentioned they had added this CNN article reference, but I can’t find this in the draft. Appears that an administrator removed it when a previous submission was rejected.
Kulinski is mentioned as a “prominent liberal and YouTube host”.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/15/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-debate-2020/index.html
MASHABLE
Why was this overlooked? I can’t find this ref in any version of the draft. He is noted as a “YouTube creator” here:
https://mashable.com/article/youtube-coronavirus-content-moderation/?europe=true
“Kulinski’s Secular Talk, with more than 800,000 subscribers, is one of the most popular political commentary channels on the platform.”
Wouldn’t this sentence from the Mashable article above have pushed Kulinski’s notability over the “borderline GNG”? — NoMagicSpells talk 17:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.Or do we need SIGCOV for that as well? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
"Another popular YouTuber who was hit with a CNN copyright claim is Kyle Kulinski. Kulinski hosts a news and politics show and says that CNN has claimed the ad revenue on most of his videos discussing the debates. These videos have generated hundreds of thousands of views which likely equates to hundreds of dollars in ad revenue that has been claimed by CNN."Is that enough to meet the GNG's requirement ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, .... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Maybe. I expect more at AfD would say that these words do not amount to significant coverage.
Not independent of the subject. The subject is providing the article content.
Is https://www.influencewatch.org/person/kyle-kulinski/ independent of Kyle Kulinski? I think it must be presumed not. I think it is either user-generated (it is anonymously authored), or it was written by an agent of Kyle. I wrote to Influence Watch asking about the authorship of the article, but received no response. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I have removed the links to his YouTube videos. I will explain all of them:
And with that, I've just covered the whole "linking to his YouTube channel" problem. This article is easily be a stub or start, but the draft reviewers won't even let us pass it unless it reaches around C-Class or B-Class. This is just ridiculous. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 23:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
”...distracted by passing mentions and sources which are not independent of the article subject”This remark makes no sense. Is it even a sentence? -- NoMagicSpells talk 01:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
”Primary sources source facts, secondary sources source opinion/analysis/comment. Gibberish again! -- NoMagicSpells talk 01:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
“...there is probably no point talking to you”That’s a very good suggestion. Nobody should talk to SmokeyJoe. -- NoMagicSpells talk 02:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Guys, Wikipedia's notability policy is extremely complicated. There is GNG and like 12 SNG's. GNG looks simple, but once you start getting involved in AFD's, you discover that it is interpreted very strictly, and any little problem can disqualify a source. At this point I've concluded that it is imperative to find and listen to experts on notability policy. Those experts are basically admins and new page patrollers, such as SmokeyJoe. We can make our own arguments, but at the end of the day if our arguments are out of alignment with the norms of AFD, they will simply be ignored by the closer. Ignoring SmokeyJoe would be like a defendant in court ignoring the advice of their lawyer. When law or policy is complicated, experts must be listened to. I for one am very appreciative that SmokeyJoe has taken quite a bit of time to deeply analyze our sources and provide expert and realistic advice. The points he's brought up are likely to be exactly what will be brought up if this article goes back to AFD or AFC. Have a look at this page to get an idea of the science behind evaluating GNG sources. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
In cutting low quality material, I cut
On January 1, 2021, Kulinski with Krystal Ball of Rising with the Hill's Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti from The Hill launched a new podcast called Krystal Kyle and Friends. The first episode featured Marianne Williamson, a 2020 Democratic Presidential primary candidate.
Ref = https://krystalkyleandfriends.substack.com/p/happy2021
This is promotion, it can find its way back in with more care, independent sourcing is required. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The following is a nice story, but it is low level incidental. This is not what Kyle is famous for.
In December 2019, the The New York Times published an article about Uygur that was factually incorrect and portrayed Uygur in a negative light.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Medina|first1=Jennifer|date=13 December 2019|title=Bernie Sanders Retracts Endorsement of Cenk Uygur After Criticism|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-cenk-uygur.html|accessdate=19 December 2019|website=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> Kulinski organized a campaign, encouraging people to contact The Times and ask for a correction.
<ref>{{Cite web|last=Wulfsohn|first=Joseph|date=December 16, 2019|title=Cenk Uygyr slams 'unconscionable' NY Times report suggesting he defended David Duke, calling it a 'lie'|url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/cenk-uygyr-david-duke-new-york-times-lie|website=[[Fox News]]}}</ref> The campaign was successful, and ''The New York Times'' issued a correction.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Wulfsohn|first1=Joseph|date=16 December 2019|title=New York Times issues correction after suggesting Cenk Uygur defended David Duke|url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-times-issues-correction-after-wrongfully-suggesting-cenk-uygur-defended-david-duke|accessdate=20 December 2019|website=[[Fox News]]}}</ref>
Maybe this can come back in if the article is agreed to be notable. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)