Kyle Kulinski – There is consensus that the AfD was closed correctly. There is no consensus for or against allowing recreation. Given the community's difficulty in coming to consensus prior to this AfD, and the lack of consensus here for recreation, I will note that
WP:CONSENSUS counsels, "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." and would suggest at least a few months lapse before any attempts to restore to mainspace. The
current MfD will make its own decision about whether or not to keep this article in draft space.
Barkeep49 (
talk)
03:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I don't know how to do this correctly, but KYLE KULINSKI of SECULAR TALK has been deleted by bad faith actors and biases of Wikipedia contributors. He is the host of one of the most popular political podcasts and YouTube channels in the world. He has interviewed political candidates, been invited to numerous forums, and in general is an absolutely noteworthy, influential, and culturally important figure in progressive politics. Please examine why he was deleted and reinstate his page immediately.
67.175.20.66 (
talk)
22:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - Well, the statement by the unregistered editor that they don't know how to do this correctly is true. If the draft is accepted, it is likely that unregistered editors and throw-away accounts will take a lot of interest in it (including possibly in a fifth AFD).
Robert McClenon (
talk)
02:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy close per Cryptic. For the record, Sandstein's close was absolutely on the money. There may have been a lot of keep !voters, but they failed to demonstrate significant coverage.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk)
06:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
endorse- the close seemed reasonable based on the discussion. I actually saw this AfD at the time and was going to !vote keep, but the personal attacks by other keep voters put me off participating.
ReykYO!07:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn. 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:
"Kyle Kulinski, a co-founder of Justice Democrats and an influential left-wing podcast host, went further. 'If democratic elites really think they’re gonna casually override the will of the voters they have another thing coming,' he said...." Bowman, Bryan (20 February 2020).
"Democratic Primary: What Happens if No One Wins a Majority of Delegates?". The Globe Post.
"This year’s Politicon (the annual non-partisan political convention which aims to bring 'Republicans, Democrats, and people of all stripes together...') culminated with a debate between Charlie Kirk, the founder and president of Turning Point USA, and Kyle Kulinski, the co-founder of Justice Democrats and host of The Kyle Kulinski Show." Haworth, Ian (November 4, 2019).
"Why The 'All' In 'Medicare for All' Is Not The Be-All And End-All". Townhall.
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:
"Following Iran’s attack on U.S. installations in Iraq, President Donald Trump addressed the nation and suggested that America does not want to use its military strength on the Western Asia country. Progressive commentator Kyle Kulinski took to Twitter to comment on the speech in real-time...." MacDonald, Tyler (8 January 2020).
"Donald Trump's Speech On Iran Attack Blasted By Kyle Kulinski For Being 'Full Of Lies And Insanity'". The Inquisitr.
"Progressive activist Kyle Kulinski said Wednesday that 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is actually 'at his best' when he shows off his famous grumpy side...." Bonn, Tess (24 July 2019).
"Progressive activist: Sanders 'at his best when he's an angry old man'". TheHill.
The only piece that you listed which may be a RS is a Guardian piece, but it's a Guardian live-feed type story where all kinds of tweets, links and random commentary are brought up. I would not say it's an indicator of notability. This would all have been pointed out to you if you had participated in the AfD.
Snooganssnoogans (
talk)
17:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Endorse but allow recreation with the newly discovered sources. The close was correct based on information at the time, but with these new sources that were previously unavailable, there's a good enough case for GNG to allow recreation.
Smartyllama (
talk)
13:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn: So a quick google search brings up articles in notable sources online where this person is either directly quoted
1,
2 or mentioned in passing
1 ,
2,
3, has even made televised TV news appearances on FOX News
1,
2, and three (
1,
2 &
3) separate appearances on one of the most popular podcasts online
1,
2,
3. Funny how I could find all these links, while the contributors supporting the deletion in the original discussion couldn't find any, especially since most of these articles have been online for the past couple of years.
In your list of RS mentions, the only RS that mention him is the Guardian piece which mentions his YouTube channel once among many channels that an NFL player likes to watch, and a Rolling Stone piece which mentions him once as one of several founders of the Justice Democrats. The rest are not RS. This would all have been pointed out to you if you had posted that comment in the AFD.
Snooganssnoogans (
talk)
17:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Endorse close. The closing admin was absolutely spot-on. It was a heavily attended AfD and 'keep' voters were repeatedly encouraged to list RS that actually provided substantive coverage of this individual. None of them did. Most of the 'keep' votes had nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, none of the editors calling for overturning the close in this deletion review have been able to point to substantive RS coverage.
Snooganssnoogans (
talk)
17:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Closer's comment: I stand by my closure, the reasons for which are illustrated by this DRV nomination. I leave the question of whether adequate sources for a recreation exist to others. Sandstein 17:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Endorse good close. There was essentially no attempt by anybody to demonstrate that the subject was notable by providing actual evidence, particularly sources showing the subject meets the GNG. The most that they came up with was bald assertions of notability with no supporting evidence. The other arguments raised amounted to bringing in irrelevant considerations (YouTube views, appearances on media outlets, the fact the debate is contentious, etc) and attacking other editors. The closer was justified in ignoring this. I'm also not very impressed by the sources which have been belatedly provided above. Aside from reliability if even the person providing the source admits that the subject is only "quoted directly" or "mentioned in passing" then it clearly doesn't pass the significant coverage test of
WP:GNG. Hut 8.519:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Endorse, and Sandstein's rationale is absolutely spot on. When someone claims a subject is not notable, there is one way to definitively refute that: Show the sourcing that proves they are. Of all the people who argued to keep, not a single one of them said "Here, look at all these sources." Given that, it's reasonable to conclude it doesn't exist. Being popular or famous doesn't make one notable; being extensively noted by reliable and independent sources does.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Endorse, and Close. Clear policy based close. Keep !voters asserted notability, but were not able to demonstrate it. NOTE: I commented in the AfD, but did not !vote. -
Ryk72talk 01:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Several editors are now using this DRV to relitigate the AfD. -
Ryk72talk20:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy close. DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone and Cryptic had it right when he mentioned DRVPURPOSE #8. Also, leaving these open to run 168 hours isn't ideal. While we leave it open, viewers from offsite may be getting the impression that Wikipedia could be persuaded to host an article on Mr Kulinski. I don't think it's fair to raise their hopes in this matter.—
S MarshallT/
C14:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Allow recreation The closer may have been procedurally correct, since the Keep votes were not particularly well grounded in policy, though the majority of votes were keep. That said, Kulinski is a notable internet personality and the sources are there for a decent article about him. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs)~
23:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn to No-consensus Not a fair reading of the AfD discussion. The subject clearly passes GNG. The sources presented at AfD are convincing. Basically there is no consensus for deletion in four attempts to delete the page, yet Sandstein cast a Supervote choosing arguments which supported their own view instead of assessing the community opinion.
Lightburst (
talk)
14:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
There are many reasons to keep the article and many notability arguments which were ignored. I am unsure as two why you have been so determined to delete the article. How about
WP:ENTERTAINER. "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."
He has 667,618,862 million YouTube views. His
appearance on Joe Rogan (Oct 2019) has 2.2 million views. The subject meets our general notability requirements and meets
WP:ENTERTAINER. We do not dismiss such notable subjects. As to the RS which you request... you have systematically dismissed any and all sources which were presented by participants, so it is a fruitless endeavor for me to present RS to you.
Lightburst (
talk)
15:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn. There seems to be some kind of conspiracy. Numerous prominent progressive (democratic socialist or social democratic) figures in United States politics have had their Wikipedia pages deleted within the past few days. This is likely a politically motivated attack related to Bernie Sanders’ recent ascent in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, as many of these progressive figures have endorsed him. In defense of Kyle Kulinski, he has 807,000 subscribers and 666,131,830 views on his YouTube channel, 284,500 followers on Twitter, and was the co-founder of the Justice Democrats (the group which supported Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's campaign). He has been on the Joe Rogan Experience three times, a podcast which has interviewed globally prominent figures such as Elon Musk, Robert Downey Jr., Sam Harris, and Bernie Sanders. The Inquisitr has already written an article about this concerted attempt to diminish his reputation:
https://www.inquisitr.com/5913483/kyle-kulinski-wikipedia. Even Jimmy Wales (User:
Jimbo_Wales) has directly responded to Kulinski's concerns on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/1232828301082841088. Clearly, he meets all criteria for cultural relevance, other than by Wikipedia’s arcane and archaic standards which dismiss the importance of people who have risen to prominence on YouTube and other social media platforms. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.175.20.66 (
talk)
18:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Endorse close. Per Sandstein's rationale. It is incredibly frustrating that we are re-litigating this issue. Just take a look at the comment above mine, which might as well have been ripped directly from one of the AfDs, which was swamped by Kulinski's army of ill-informed Twitter activists. This is tiresome. If I'm a
neoliberal troll for supporting Wikipedia policy, then I am glad to accept that label.
KidAd (
talk)
22:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - I contested the draft's speedy deletion nomination, replaced the deleted resubmision rationale, and because {{salt}}ing was requested, I stored the wikitext in
[2].
EllenCT (
talk)
07:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Endorse. It must be very difficult to close a discussion that has been the subject of partisan disruption, but here the closer made the correct call. As with any topic the article can easily be recreated if the topic is notable simply by citing the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that people are claiming to exist. I must add that it makes a refreshing change for Wikipedia to be accused of bias by those on the left - it is usually the far right who make such accusations.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
10:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Several notable sources have been mentioned above which are routinely dismissed by those favoring delete. But here are a couple more
[3][4][5][6][7] and several others including the Washington Post which called him an "influential podcast host". At the very least this should not be allowed to speedy close, as some on the above editors have stated. The draft article should be allowed to incubate, though that's not likely to happen since it is "contrary to the purpose of the encyclopedia" (whatever that means). The fact remains that sources are not especially difficult to come by and Sandstein's close, while perhaps correct, should probably have been No consensus. I honestly don't like the response of some in the Endorse camp (not necessarily Phil Bridger) who are very dismissive of Kulinski and some of his supporters on here. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs)~
16:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Frustrated AfD participant here. It says something about the article that someone needed to nominate for deletion 4 times and then it took a Supervote to delete it. A fair reading of the fourth AfD is a clear Keep - and if you think it is not a keep then it is certainly a no-consensus. For the record there were 13 keep !votes some with compelling rationales and there were 6 Delete !votes and some had good rationales. Sandstein chose to ignore clear community opinion. The fact that we need to go to these lengths in order to scrub the article from existence should be reason enough to pause. This is not how AfD is supposed to work IMO.
Lightburst (
talk)
21:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy Close per Cryptic. Honestly the only reason why we are here and why we got to this many AfD's is because of Kulinski's canvassing Twitter (this DRV was requested just hours after
this tweet). That being said I do not oppose allowing a draft to go through the AfC process, preferably under heightened scrutiny of sourcing. Best,
GPL93 (
talk)
21:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Request would someone neutral on the question please summarize the extent to which political views are pertinent to
WP:ENTERTAINER? Have we declared others with similarly large followings non-notable?
EllenCT (
talk)
20:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not a fan of the canvassing that happened at the AfD, and I think the closer did a commendable job of ignoring them. But I'm also not a fan of the canvassing that happened here either (see below). All that aside, I don't think there's any reason we can't recreate the article should new sources appear. –
bradv🍁02:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Just as a piece of gentle advice, invoking Jimmy Wales is more likely to influence people against your position than in favour of it. His Twitter posts are no more reliable sources than anyone else's, and he is well known for supporting D-list "celebrities" who deign to talk to him at cocktail parties. I'm not saying that that has happened here, but it demonstrates why his opinion counts for very little on Wikipedia.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
17:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Just as a piece of gentle advice,
WP:NPA is still policy at Wikipedia, and in addition to being manifestly false in all relevant particular, your comment is rude and insulting. First, no one suggested that my twitter posts are reliable sources to that's a straw man argument. Second, not only am I not well known for "supporting D-list 'celebrities' who deign to talk to (me) at cocktail parties" there is a reason why I'm not well known for that: it's an utter bald-faced lie. In general my opinion tends to count for a great deal at Wikipedia but for no other reason than that I am a good Wikipedian who deeply respects and defends NPOV and policy based reasons to do things in all cases. I highly recommend that you retract your comment, and that if you have any specific complaints you bring it to my talk page.--
Jimbo Wales (
talk)
11:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Since you're a fan of citing NPA, perhaps you care to chime in at the MFD where you have a group of editors, including the one below accusing anyone in opposition of having an ulterior motive and demanding to know their political alignment?
Praxidicae (
talk)
13:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I am pleased to see that the accuracy or reliability of Jacobin has never been challenged at
WP:RSN, and has a circulation of about what Kulinski achieved in viewership over the past ten hours of his most recent video.
EllenCT (
talk)
09:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Allow recreation. I'm not up on the details of notability standards for actors, but with a two year old AfD and a claim that the concerns raised at the AfD no longer apply, there's no reason not to go ahead and recreate the article. My one suggestion is that before you do that, take a look at
WP:NACTOR and make sure he meets the requirements. --
RoySmith(talk)22:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Allow recreation Times change and notability evolves, there's no reason this individual can't be considered for an article now, AFD isn't rigid and forever.
KaisaL (
talk)
08:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Kyle Kulinski – There is consensus that the AfD was closed correctly. There is no consensus for or against allowing recreation. Given the community's difficulty in coming to consensus prior to this AfD, and the lack of consensus here for recreation, I will note that
WP:CONSENSUS counsels, "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." and would suggest at least a few months lapse before any attempts to restore to mainspace. The
current MfD will make its own decision about whether or not to keep this article in draft space.
Barkeep49 (
talk)
03:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I don't know how to do this correctly, but KYLE KULINSKI of SECULAR TALK has been deleted by bad faith actors and biases of Wikipedia contributors. He is the host of one of the most popular political podcasts and YouTube channels in the world. He has interviewed political candidates, been invited to numerous forums, and in general is an absolutely noteworthy, influential, and culturally important figure in progressive politics. Please examine why he was deleted and reinstate his page immediately.
67.175.20.66 (
talk)
22:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - Well, the statement by the unregistered editor that they don't know how to do this correctly is true. If the draft is accepted, it is likely that unregistered editors and throw-away accounts will take a lot of interest in it (including possibly in a fifth AFD).
Robert McClenon (
talk)
02:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy close per Cryptic. For the record, Sandstein's close was absolutely on the money. There may have been a lot of keep !voters, but they failed to demonstrate significant coverage.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk)
06:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
endorse- the close seemed reasonable based on the discussion. I actually saw this AfD at the time and was going to !vote keep, but the personal attacks by other keep voters put me off participating.
ReykYO!07:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn. 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:
"Kyle Kulinski, a co-founder of Justice Democrats and an influential left-wing podcast host, went further. 'If democratic elites really think they’re gonna casually override the will of the voters they have another thing coming,' he said...." Bowman, Bryan (20 February 2020).
"Democratic Primary: What Happens if No One Wins a Majority of Delegates?". The Globe Post.
"This year’s Politicon (the annual non-partisan political convention which aims to bring 'Republicans, Democrats, and people of all stripes together...') culminated with a debate between Charlie Kirk, the founder and president of Turning Point USA, and Kyle Kulinski, the co-founder of Justice Democrats and host of The Kyle Kulinski Show." Haworth, Ian (November 4, 2019).
"Why The 'All' In 'Medicare for All' Is Not The Be-All And End-All". Townhall.
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:
"Following Iran’s attack on U.S. installations in Iraq, President Donald Trump addressed the nation and suggested that America does not want to use its military strength on the Western Asia country. Progressive commentator Kyle Kulinski took to Twitter to comment on the speech in real-time...." MacDonald, Tyler (8 January 2020).
"Donald Trump's Speech On Iran Attack Blasted By Kyle Kulinski For Being 'Full Of Lies And Insanity'". The Inquisitr.
"Progressive activist Kyle Kulinski said Wednesday that 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is actually 'at his best' when he shows off his famous grumpy side...." Bonn, Tess (24 July 2019).
"Progressive activist: Sanders 'at his best when he's an angry old man'". TheHill.
The only piece that you listed which may be a RS is a Guardian piece, but it's a Guardian live-feed type story where all kinds of tweets, links and random commentary are brought up. I would not say it's an indicator of notability. This would all have been pointed out to you if you had participated in the AfD.
Snooganssnoogans (
talk)
17:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Endorse but allow recreation with the newly discovered sources. The close was correct based on information at the time, but with these new sources that were previously unavailable, there's a good enough case for GNG to allow recreation.
Smartyllama (
talk)
13:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn: So a quick google search brings up articles in notable sources online where this person is either directly quoted
1,
2 or mentioned in passing
1 ,
2,
3, has even made televised TV news appearances on FOX News
1,
2, and three (
1,
2 &
3) separate appearances on one of the most popular podcasts online
1,
2,
3. Funny how I could find all these links, while the contributors supporting the deletion in the original discussion couldn't find any, especially since most of these articles have been online for the past couple of years.
In your list of RS mentions, the only RS that mention him is the Guardian piece which mentions his YouTube channel once among many channels that an NFL player likes to watch, and a Rolling Stone piece which mentions him once as one of several founders of the Justice Democrats. The rest are not RS. This would all have been pointed out to you if you had posted that comment in the AFD.
Snooganssnoogans (
talk)
17:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Endorse close. The closing admin was absolutely spot-on. It was a heavily attended AfD and 'keep' voters were repeatedly encouraged to list RS that actually provided substantive coverage of this individual. None of them did. Most of the 'keep' votes had nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, none of the editors calling for overturning the close in this deletion review have been able to point to substantive RS coverage.
Snooganssnoogans (
talk)
17:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Closer's comment: I stand by my closure, the reasons for which are illustrated by this DRV nomination. I leave the question of whether adequate sources for a recreation exist to others. Sandstein 17:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Endorse good close. There was essentially no attempt by anybody to demonstrate that the subject was notable by providing actual evidence, particularly sources showing the subject meets the GNG. The most that they came up with was bald assertions of notability with no supporting evidence. The other arguments raised amounted to bringing in irrelevant considerations (YouTube views, appearances on media outlets, the fact the debate is contentious, etc) and attacking other editors. The closer was justified in ignoring this. I'm also not very impressed by the sources which have been belatedly provided above. Aside from reliability if even the person providing the source admits that the subject is only "quoted directly" or "mentioned in passing" then it clearly doesn't pass the significant coverage test of
WP:GNG. Hut 8.519:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Endorse, and Sandstein's rationale is absolutely spot on. When someone claims a subject is not notable, there is one way to definitively refute that: Show the sourcing that proves they are. Of all the people who argued to keep, not a single one of them said "Here, look at all these sources." Given that, it's reasonable to conclude it doesn't exist. Being popular or famous doesn't make one notable; being extensively noted by reliable and independent sources does.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Endorse, and Close. Clear policy based close. Keep !voters asserted notability, but were not able to demonstrate it. NOTE: I commented in the AfD, but did not !vote. -
Ryk72talk 01:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Several editors are now using this DRV to relitigate the AfD. -
Ryk72talk20:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy close. DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone and Cryptic had it right when he mentioned DRVPURPOSE #8. Also, leaving these open to run 168 hours isn't ideal. While we leave it open, viewers from offsite may be getting the impression that Wikipedia could be persuaded to host an article on Mr Kulinski. I don't think it's fair to raise their hopes in this matter.—
S MarshallT/
C14:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Allow recreation The closer may have been procedurally correct, since the Keep votes were not particularly well grounded in policy, though the majority of votes were keep. That said, Kulinski is a notable internet personality and the sources are there for a decent article about him. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs)~
23:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn to No-consensus Not a fair reading of the AfD discussion. The subject clearly passes GNG. The sources presented at AfD are convincing. Basically there is no consensus for deletion in four attempts to delete the page, yet Sandstein cast a Supervote choosing arguments which supported their own view instead of assessing the community opinion.
Lightburst (
talk)
14:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
There are many reasons to keep the article and many notability arguments which were ignored. I am unsure as two why you have been so determined to delete the article. How about
WP:ENTERTAINER. "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."
He has 667,618,862 million YouTube views. His
appearance on Joe Rogan (Oct 2019) has 2.2 million views. The subject meets our general notability requirements and meets
WP:ENTERTAINER. We do not dismiss such notable subjects. As to the RS which you request... you have systematically dismissed any and all sources which were presented by participants, so it is a fruitless endeavor for me to present RS to you.
Lightburst (
talk)
15:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Overturn. There seems to be some kind of conspiracy. Numerous prominent progressive (democratic socialist or social democratic) figures in United States politics have had their Wikipedia pages deleted within the past few days. This is likely a politically motivated attack related to Bernie Sanders’ recent ascent in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, as many of these progressive figures have endorsed him. In defense of Kyle Kulinski, he has 807,000 subscribers and 666,131,830 views on his YouTube channel, 284,500 followers on Twitter, and was the co-founder of the Justice Democrats (the group which supported Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's campaign). He has been on the Joe Rogan Experience three times, a podcast which has interviewed globally prominent figures such as Elon Musk, Robert Downey Jr., Sam Harris, and Bernie Sanders. The Inquisitr has already written an article about this concerted attempt to diminish his reputation:
https://www.inquisitr.com/5913483/kyle-kulinski-wikipedia. Even Jimmy Wales (User:
Jimbo_Wales) has directly responded to Kulinski's concerns on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/1232828301082841088. Clearly, he meets all criteria for cultural relevance, other than by Wikipedia’s arcane and archaic standards which dismiss the importance of people who have risen to prominence on YouTube and other social media platforms. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.175.20.66 (
talk)
18:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Endorse close. Per Sandstein's rationale. It is incredibly frustrating that we are re-litigating this issue. Just take a look at the comment above mine, which might as well have been ripped directly from one of the AfDs, which was swamped by Kulinski's army of ill-informed Twitter activists. This is tiresome. If I'm a
neoliberal troll for supporting Wikipedia policy, then I am glad to accept that label.
KidAd (
talk)
22:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - I contested the draft's speedy deletion nomination, replaced the deleted resubmision rationale, and because {{salt}}ing was requested, I stored the wikitext in
[2].
EllenCT (
talk)
07:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Endorse. It must be very difficult to close a discussion that has been the subject of partisan disruption, but here the closer made the correct call. As with any topic the article can easily be recreated if the topic is notable simply by citing the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that people are claiming to exist. I must add that it makes a refreshing change for Wikipedia to be accused of bias by those on the left - it is usually the far right who make such accusations.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
10:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Several notable sources have been mentioned above which are routinely dismissed by those favoring delete. But here are a couple more
[3][4][5][6][7] and several others including the Washington Post which called him an "influential podcast host". At the very least this should not be allowed to speedy close, as some on the above editors have stated. The draft article should be allowed to incubate, though that's not likely to happen since it is "contrary to the purpose of the encyclopedia" (whatever that means). The fact remains that sources are not especially difficult to come by and Sandstein's close, while perhaps correct, should probably have been No consensus. I honestly don't like the response of some in the Endorse camp (not necessarily Phil Bridger) who are very dismissive of Kulinski and some of his supporters on here. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs)~
16:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Frustrated AfD participant here. It says something about the article that someone needed to nominate for deletion 4 times and then it took a Supervote to delete it. A fair reading of the fourth AfD is a clear Keep - and if you think it is not a keep then it is certainly a no-consensus. For the record there were 13 keep !votes some with compelling rationales and there were 6 Delete !votes and some had good rationales. Sandstein chose to ignore clear community opinion. The fact that we need to go to these lengths in order to scrub the article from existence should be reason enough to pause. This is not how AfD is supposed to work IMO.
Lightburst (
talk)
21:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy Close per Cryptic. Honestly the only reason why we are here and why we got to this many AfD's is because of Kulinski's canvassing Twitter (this DRV was requested just hours after
this tweet). That being said I do not oppose allowing a draft to go through the AfC process, preferably under heightened scrutiny of sourcing. Best,
GPL93 (
talk)
21:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Request would someone neutral on the question please summarize the extent to which political views are pertinent to
WP:ENTERTAINER? Have we declared others with similarly large followings non-notable?
EllenCT (
talk)
20:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not a fan of the canvassing that happened at the AfD, and I think the closer did a commendable job of ignoring them. But I'm also not a fan of the canvassing that happened here either (see below). All that aside, I don't think there's any reason we can't recreate the article should new sources appear. –
bradv🍁02:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Just as a piece of gentle advice, invoking Jimmy Wales is more likely to influence people against your position than in favour of it. His Twitter posts are no more reliable sources than anyone else's, and he is well known for supporting D-list "celebrities" who deign to talk to him at cocktail parties. I'm not saying that that has happened here, but it demonstrates why his opinion counts for very little on Wikipedia.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
17:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Just as a piece of gentle advice,
WP:NPA is still policy at Wikipedia, and in addition to being manifestly false in all relevant particular, your comment is rude and insulting. First, no one suggested that my twitter posts are reliable sources to that's a straw man argument. Second, not only am I not well known for "supporting D-list 'celebrities' who deign to talk to (me) at cocktail parties" there is a reason why I'm not well known for that: it's an utter bald-faced lie. In general my opinion tends to count for a great deal at Wikipedia but for no other reason than that I am a good Wikipedian who deeply respects and defends NPOV and policy based reasons to do things in all cases. I highly recommend that you retract your comment, and that if you have any specific complaints you bring it to my talk page.--
Jimbo Wales (
talk)
11:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Since you're a fan of citing NPA, perhaps you care to chime in at the MFD where you have a group of editors, including the one below accusing anyone in opposition of having an ulterior motive and demanding to know their political alignment?
Praxidicae (
talk)
13:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I am pleased to see that the accuracy or reliability of Jacobin has never been challenged at
WP:RSN, and has a circulation of about what Kulinski achieved in viewership over the past ten hours of his most recent video.
EllenCT (
talk)
09:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Allow recreation. I'm not up on the details of notability standards for actors, but with a two year old AfD and a claim that the concerns raised at the AfD no longer apply, there's no reason not to go ahead and recreate the article. My one suggestion is that before you do that, take a look at
WP:NACTOR and make sure he meets the requirements. --
RoySmith(talk)22:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Allow recreation Times change and notability evolves, there's no reason this individual can't be considered for an article now, AFD isn't rigid and forever.
KaisaL (
talk)
08:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.