This page was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2020. The result of the discussion was delete. |
I was easily able to find mass media coverage which had apparently been overlooked, such as [1] that I have already added to the REFUNDed draft. Here are some more:
Do we consider such quotations as an authority to be substantial coverage or merely mentions in passing? In contrast, here is a Rolling Stone article which mentions him in passing but does not quote him as an authority. In any case, these sources lead with his name, so they seem like substantial coverage:
EllenCT ( talk) 08:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone claim that Kulinski does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER? If so, why? EllenCT ( talk) 18:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because the subject is notable. -- EllenCT ( talk) 07:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3-of-the-silliest-tweets-opposing-the-killing-of-qassim-soleimani EllenCT ( talk) 18:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
a quotation as of an authority. Again, what content would this source support? I genuinely can't see that there's much meat in the source - Kulinski tweeted something; Rogan (in the WE) thought it was ignorant - what more is there? And I don't mean to single out this source. I genuinely can't see that there's much in most of the sources listed in the sections above. - Ryk72 talk 23:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, if the article included references to articles from publications of this nature (hypothetically), where the subject is the primary or secondary focus, would the subject then be considered notable? Vox, Bloomberg, Forbes, NYT, Washington Post, Wired, Fox, MSNBC, Mother Jones, various books. (Would any of these sources be considered irrelevant or biased?) Presently, is the subject close to being notable, or very far from being notable?
Here are some articles where he is mentioned:
Falseinfinity ( talk) 20:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
There has been a lot of good faith discussion about the notability and sourcing of this article. After the March 6, 2020 edits, the article meets both criteria, with profile piece in Jacobin magazine, reference as a prominent liberal by CNN and as an internet idol by The Washington Post. Sourcing now includes CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Fox News, IMDB, Rolling Stone, Yahoo!, The Nation, Jacobin and Vice, as well as multiple published books from notable publishers - all of which are considered reliable sources. Further, the coverage is over a long period of time and broad in context. Viktorpp ( talk) 11:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I started an examination of the references for notability, got about halfway through but have to stop for now so pasting the table here in case anyone else wants to finish it off. Schazjmd (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Schazjmd's wikitable
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
"wikitable sortable"
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
User:Scottywong has protected the draft for three months. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kyle Kulinski. Sensible, I think.
The above section #Evaluating notability looks good for screening possible GNG-meeting, notability-attesting sources. Until there are at least two, I do not think it is sensible to write content, as the content will be founded on an unsuitable foundation. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
“ | .... “In my private life I’m not all that outgoing. I’m kind of a reserved person, and I keep to myself,” he says." is information straight from the subject, this is not independent coverage. | ” |
“ | Allow recreation. This was a good close based on what was available at the time. But we now have a new RS which is a profile piece with statements clearly establishing notability, as well as people saying that there are previously overlooked reliable sources. This is a sufficient policy-based rationale to allow for a new draft to be put forward for improvement.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC) | ” |
{The article meets Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources. The point of the rule is to exclude using first party sources, but they wouldn't meet readability anyway. It's not designed to exclude publishers because they have an ideological bias. In fact it doesn't necessarily exclude sources writing about related companies. (Media groups are often owned by transnational corporations with interests in different types of business.)
I am just wanting to enquire as to whether the article will be published (eventually) or not, and furthermore, if that seems soon or not. Progress seems to have slowed. Also, I am not aware as to why there is so much fuss over one article, so if anyone is willing to inform me that would be appreciated. Finally, what is the most beneficial way I can contribute? What needs to be done to get the article finished? WBPchur 💬● ✒️● 💛 09:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
As the author of the first AfD and one of the original article creators, I feel that I should weigh in here. Over the past hour or so I went back and looked at the past AfD and the deletion review, as well as the tweet Kyle sent out a month or two ago. Technically speaking, I was called out implicitly since I initiated the first AfD. My rationale (some of this is personal opinion) for this was simple, and still stands today: as much as I love Kyle, as much as I'll sit back and listen to his live broadcasts through Blog Talk Radio while I'm exercising, as long as I've been listening to his show, the mainstream media will never acknowledge him the way they will with other left-of-center/progressive commentators such as Ana Kasparian, David Pakman (and their article is on shaky ground) and Cenk Uygur. Unfortunately you have people like Ben Shapiro with over 50 references from reliable sources and he's a right-wing commentator.
In fact, I would compare and contrast BS' article to Kyle's and you'll see the disparity there. He founded several right-wing websites, which are notable in themselves, while Kyle created Justice Democrats. He has also written several books and is always doing his silly speaking tours. Again, I am not saying this makes him more "important" or "accomplished" than Kyle. I personally believe, and this is opinion only, that there is more money to be made in these RW circles, and he gets money thrown at him for spewing his talking points. Meanwhile, you have Kyle cursing (which a lot of "proper reliable sources" dislike), holding "controversial" viewpoints and generally discrediting the media left and right. He also hasn't written books, hasn't gone on speaking tours, hasn't been a columnist. Because of the nature in how YouTube is structured and the abundance of channels between 100k-1M subscribers (I remember when having that many subscribers meant you were a major channel), they would rather not cover him and his channel, which is still under a million subscribers.
People outside of Wikipedia don't typically understand the rules like we do. There are so many people, when news breaks, who assume that Wikipedia "staff members" edit and publish articles as if it were World Book. That's okay though, I probably don't know much about how what these other people specialize in works either, whether they're garbage collectors, doctors or lawyers. So again, while many of us may personally see him as a notable figure, the rules of Wikipedia are specific in their criteria yet broad in how they are applied, which, while I agree with it in principle, has the unfortunate side-effect of weeding out those who do not capitulate to the mainstream media. Invading his AfD on a tweet Kyle sent out in a crusade to protect his article is a noble gesture if you believe there's a secret cabal against him, but without knowing the policies, is a fruitless goal. Hopefully one day Kyle will get his article, but as it stands I don't see how one can be reasonably made. Buffaboy talk 20:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
At #WP:ENTERTAINER above, the question, "Does anyone claim that Kulinski does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER?" has resulted in no responses in over a month, during which time Kulinski's total YouTube views have increased by 3% or 21 million. Because of the difficult history of this draft, we should obtain clear consensus before requesting creation again. Therefore, yes or no, does Kulinski meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability critera, specifically that he as an "opinion maker," has had a significant role in his YouTube productions, has a large fan base, and has made unique and prolific contributions to political commentary entertainment? For those concerned with recent sources, please note that he continues to be covered as a headliner authority by The Hill TV. 07:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Please don't hold RfCs in user talk pages; use a more appropriate location, such as the talk page for the article concerned, or the talk page of the most relevant WikiProject. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#RFC on Kyle Kulinski. EllenCT ( talk) 22:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone figure out how many Hill TV stories have relied on Kylinski as an authority? Google returns over 1,600 pages mentioning him there, but that includes duplications from headline listings from recent stories and I can't figure out how to correctly eliminate duplicates. EllenCT ( talk) 07:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Three months have elapsed since Draft:Kyle Kulinski was protected, and it can now be submitted to AfC. I feel the article has greatly improved since then and definitely meets GNG. Do we have a consensus to submit it? Mottezen ( talk) 08:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Trackinfo ( talk · contribs) EllenCT ( talk · contribs)
This page was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2020. The result of the discussion was delete. |
I was easily able to find mass media coverage which had apparently been overlooked, such as [1] that I have already added to the REFUNDed draft. Here are some more:
Do we consider such quotations as an authority to be substantial coverage or merely mentions in passing? In contrast, here is a Rolling Stone article which mentions him in passing but does not quote him as an authority. In any case, these sources lead with his name, so they seem like substantial coverage:
EllenCT ( talk) 08:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone claim that Kulinski does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER? If so, why? EllenCT ( talk) 18:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because the subject is notable. -- EllenCT ( talk) 07:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3-of-the-silliest-tweets-opposing-the-killing-of-qassim-soleimani EllenCT ( talk) 18:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
a quotation as of an authority. Again, what content would this source support? I genuinely can't see that there's much meat in the source - Kulinski tweeted something; Rogan (in the WE) thought it was ignorant - what more is there? And I don't mean to single out this source. I genuinely can't see that there's much in most of the sources listed in the sections above. - Ryk72 talk 23:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, if the article included references to articles from publications of this nature (hypothetically), where the subject is the primary or secondary focus, would the subject then be considered notable? Vox, Bloomberg, Forbes, NYT, Washington Post, Wired, Fox, MSNBC, Mother Jones, various books. (Would any of these sources be considered irrelevant or biased?) Presently, is the subject close to being notable, or very far from being notable?
Here are some articles where he is mentioned:
Falseinfinity ( talk) 20:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
There has been a lot of good faith discussion about the notability and sourcing of this article. After the March 6, 2020 edits, the article meets both criteria, with profile piece in Jacobin magazine, reference as a prominent liberal by CNN and as an internet idol by The Washington Post. Sourcing now includes CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Fox News, IMDB, Rolling Stone, Yahoo!, The Nation, Jacobin and Vice, as well as multiple published books from notable publishers - all of which are considered reliable sources. Further, the coverage is over a long period of time and broad in context. Viktorpp ( talk) 11:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I started an examination of the references for notability, got about halfway through but have to stop for now so pasting the table here in case anyone else wants to finish it off. Schazjmd (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Schazjmd's wikitable
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
"wikitable sortable"
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
User:Scottywong has protected the draft for three months. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kyle Kulinski. Sensible, I think.
The above section #Evaluating notability looks good for screening possible GNG-meeting, notability-attesting sources. Until there are at least two, I do not think it is sensible to write content, as the content will be founded on an unsuitable foundation. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
“ | .... “In my private life I’m not all that outgoing. I’m kind of a reserved person, and I keep to myself,” he says." is information straight from the subject, this is not independent coverage. | ” |
“ | Allow recreation. This was a good close based on what was available at the time. But we now have a new RS which is a profile piece with statements clearly establishing notability, as well as people saying that there are previously overlooked reliable sources. This is a sufficient policy-based rationale to allow for a new draft to be put forward for improvement.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC) | ” |
{The article meets Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources. The point of the rule is to exclude using first party sources, but they wouldn't meet readability anyway. It's not designed to exclude publishers because they have an ideological bias. In fact it doesn't necessarily exclude sources writing about related companies. (Media groups are often owned by transnational corporations with interests in different types of business.)
I am just wanting to enquire as to whether the article will be published (eventually) or not, and furthermore, if that seems soon or not. Progress seems to have slowed. Also, I am not aware as to why there is so much fuss over one article, so if anyone is willing to inform me that would be appreciated. Finally, what is the most beneficial way I can contribute? What needs to be done to get the article finished? WBPchur 💬● ✒️● 💛 09:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
As the author of the first AfD and one of the original article creators, I feel that I should weigh in here. Over the past hour or so I went back and looked at the past AfD and the deletion review, as well as the tweet Kyle sent out a month or two ago. Technically speaking, I was called out implicitly since I initiated the first AfD. My rationale (some of this is personal opinion) for this was simple, and still stands today: as much as I love Kyle, as much as I'll sit back and listen to his live broadcasts through Blog Talk Radio while I'm exercising, as long as I've been listening to his show, the mainstream media will never acknowledge him the way they will with other left-of-center/progressive commentators such as Ana Kasparian, David Pakman (and their article is on shaky ground) and Cenk Uygur. Unfortunately you have people like Ben Shapiro with over 50 references from reliable sources and he's a right-wing commentator.
In fact, I would compare and contrast BS' article to Kyle's and you'll see the disparity there. He founded several right-wing websites, which are notable in themselves, while Kyle created Justice Democrats. He has also written several books and is always doing his silly speaking tours. Again, I am not saying this makes him more "important" or "accomplished" than Kyle. I personally believe, and this is opinion only, that there is more money to be made in these RW circles, and he gets money thrown at him for spewing his talking points. Meanwhile, you have Kyle cursing (which a lot of "proper reliable sources" dislike), holding "controversial" viewpoints and generally discrediting the media left and right. He also hasn't written books, hasn't gone on speaking tours, hasn't been a columnist. Because of the nature in how YouTube is structured and the abundance of channels between 100k-1M subscribers (I remember when having that many subscribers meant you were a major channel), they would rather not cover him and his channel, which is still under a million subscribers.
People outside of Wikipedia don't typically understand the rules like we do. There are so many people, when news breaks, who assume that Wikipedia "staff members" edit and publish articles as if it were World Book. That's okay though, I probably don't know much about how what these other people specialize in works either, whether they're garbage collectors, doctors or lawyers. So again, while many of us may personally see him as a notable figure, the rules of Wikipedia are specific in their criteria yet broad in how they are applied, which, while I agree with it in principle, has the unfortunate side-effect of weeding out those who do not capitulate to the mainstream media. Invading his AfD on a tweet Kyle sent out in a crusade to protect his article is a noble gesture if you believe there's a secret cabal against him, but without knowing the policies, is a fruitless goal. Hopefully one day Kyle will get his article, but as it stands I don't see how one can be reasonably made. Buffaboy talk 20:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
At #WP:ENTERTAINER above, the question, "Does anyone claim that Kulinski does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER?" has resulted in no responses in over a month, during which time Kulinski's total YouTube views have increased by 3% or 21 million. Because of the difficult history of this draft, we should obtain clear consensus before requesting creation again. Therefore, yes or no, does Kulinski meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability critera, specifically that he as an "opinion maker," has had a significant role in his YouTube productions, has a large fan base, and has made unique and prolific contributions to political commentary entertainment? For those concerned with recent sources, please note that he continues to be covered as a headliner authority by The Hill TV. 07:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Please don't hold RfCs in user talk pages; use a more appropriate location, such as the talk page for the article concerned, or the talk page of the most relevant WikiProject. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 12:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#RFC on Kyle Kulinski. EllenCT ( talk) 22:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone figure out how many Hill TV stories have relied on Kylinski as an authority? Google returns over 1,600 pages mentioning him there, but that includes duplications from headline listings from recent stories and I can't figure out how to correctly eliminate duplicates. EllenCT ( talk) 07:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Three months have elapsed since Draft:Kyle Kulinski was protected, and it can now be submitted to AfC. I feel the article has greatly improved since then and definitely meets GNG. Do we have a consensus to submit it? Mottezen ( talk) 08:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Trackinfo ( talk · contribs) EllenCT ( talk · contribs)