The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Consensus is to keep the draft in draft space, since the bar for deletion in draft space is far lower than in article space. This consensus does not overturn the prior consensus recently established at AfD and DRV, and this discussion doesn't change consensus on whether or not the subject is notable. It seems obvious that a lot of people want to see an article on this person (and have wanted it since 2015, when the first version of the article was deleted), but that cannot happen until something significant occurs to change the consensus on this person's notability.

Given that an article on this subject was just recently deleted at AfD and upheld at DRV, and that it has already been created and deleted at least 5 times since 2015, and this draft has been submitted and rejected at AfC at least 4 times in the last week or two, I've independently decided to fully protect this draft for a period of 3 months with the intent of preventing anyone from submitting it at AfC again until that time has elapsed. In 3 months, we can all look at the subject with fresh eyes, look at new sources that have popped up since then, and have another discussion. For now, we need to respect the consensus that was established at AfD and not risk disruption by trying to overturn it so soon. ‑Scottywong | [babble] || 00:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kyle Kulinski[edit]

This draft seems to have become a wounded monster that needs to be shot with silver bullets. If we can just leave it alone in a Rejected state, we can just leave it alone, but if it keeps getting resubmitted, then it is a monster that needs to be shot. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

delete pew pew pew. How many AFDs do we need? Perhaps a moratorium on this article, as I'm not sure that a few months time is sufficient enough for any substantial change after four deletion discussions. (And no, the temper tantrum on social media encouraging people to complain doesn't count.) Praxidicae (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the 3RD rejection. This just failed in a AfD less than a month ago. A review of that AfD just a few days ago again confirmed by consensus that this subject is not notable. The reasons given in comments and on the talk page as to why this person is notable are the same dubious claims that were already considered and rejected by the aforementioned consensus. The standard for AfC is quite simple: Is it likely to survive an AfD? And the answer here is a clear no. Continuing to resubmit this or otherwise bypass the standards required by AfC without first clearly showing how this person has somehow become clearly notable in the past week or so will be considered disruptive and in bad faith. I've done everything I can to avoid having to waste even more time with yet another deletion discussion but that might be unavoidable if this is dubiously submitted again. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this goes anything like the most recent AfD then we should brace ourselves for a sludge of new users equipped with poor rationales. If that's the case, a plea of reason for whoever closes this out to ensure you're considering the valid reasoning behind a vote, not just the vote count. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Salt per all of the above comments. Rehashing this four different times is completely ludicrous. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Switching to weak keep. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep First, I still feel it was unjustly deleted at the previous AfD, after previously surviving an earlier set of attacks. With 3/4 of a million subscribers, Mr. Kulinski's article has not been his failure to achieve notability, but rather has been part of a much larger attack to quash the nature of his content and content like it. Once it was deleted, I requested it be saved to my sandbox for future improvements, as I expect Mr. Kulinski will continue to play a notable role in progressive media. Other users added to that content and moved it back to Draft status, redirecting it away from my saved version. Those other users are the ones who brought forth the attempt to refund. So at this point, to save couple of steps, I have restored the article to my sandbox to keep this content available for improvement. A better, more public way would be to keep it in draft status. The proper and just way will be to return this article to mainspace. Whether that happens now or in the future is only a matter of time and the will of politically motivated actors. Trackinfo (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the opposition is improperly politically motivated. Unless, for example, there is another WP:ENTERTAINER with a similarly sized YouTube following and search interest frequently summarized by the videography branch of a major national political newspaper (TheHill TV) who has been considered non-notable? I object to the use of the language of assassination to refer to deletion of a BLP, by a nominator who has thus far refused to discuss his motivations for doing so. Because the draft was nominated for speedy deletion and salting under circumstances where any reasonable editor would know or should know that the nomination would be contested, I saved its wikitext at [1]. EllenCT (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

because the opposition is improperly politically motivated uh...come again? What exactly does this mean? Praxidicae (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the sourcing rationales are insufficient. I'm trying to help you out here. According to YouTube, 99,000 people have watched this video he published five hours ago. Can you find any example of an WP:ENTERTAINER with even 1,000 views per hour upon release who has ever been held to be non-notable? There is much lower hanging fruit. What if Colbert comes to his aid? Are you prepared to deal with the cleanup if he or Kulinski for that matter, were to flash a shortlink to a page describing how to vote in this or future such AfDs upon the inevitable fan recreations? Do you really expect that he will not continue to achieve mentions as an authoritative commentator in reliable sources? And if so, for how long? EllenCT (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the straw man there, notability isn't explicitly based on things like views, google hits, subscribers, traffic, etc. It's the extent to which a subject received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (not self-published sources, not sources connected to the subject or a collaborator, not lists/charts/figures, not brief mentions in articles about other things, etc.). Those that have been provided thus far don't meet that criteria. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is the single most absurd, borderline threatening rationale I've ever heard. Why would I or any other editor care if Colbert "came to his aid"? Also your argument that he's notable because of YouTube hits has no merit. Viewership does not equate to notability for the same reason Facebook likes and instagram followers don't inherently make someone notable. Praxidicae (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint about the language used also has no merit when you accuse others of bad faith such as I object to the use of the language of assassination to refer to deletion of a BLP, by a nominator who has thus far refused to discuss his motivations for doing so. Implying that someone has an ulterior motive or are otherwise nominating in bad faith is in itself a personal attack. And last I checked (the AFD in which this was deleted), they adequately explained the nomination, so much so that it was deleted, so...Praxidicae (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline is right! Even if he isn't nominally notable, why are so many people adamant that he isn't notable at all, to the point of using the language of assassination to call for its deletion? I just don't think it's worth risking Sisyphian volunteer time. I'm also interested in politically motivated deletions and controversial subjects in general. What makes a deletion rationale adequate to describe removing a BLP with the language of intentional infliction of injury? EllenCT (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed something, but when did we establish the expectation that volunteers at an XfD need to explain alleged personal motivations underlying their !votes? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I see here is how standards change when a crowd of politically motivated people join together or are pushed here to cause an agenda to quash content. In many normal AfDs (and I have fought far too many AfD battles), ten sources would be sufficient to cause an article to survive, if not through the content specific notability standards, simply through WP:GNG. Here, even 26 sources are not adequate, still. Its not the problem with the article, it is the editors arguing for deletion. The bar moves because that group of people want the article deleted. The standards change to suit the desired result. Wikipedia is supposed to have a collegial landscape. Just as the reality of contemporary politics, there is not collegiality, there is simply force. Somewhere, some organized effort has been pushed to delete progressive wikipedia content. They were sent with their marching orders and a list of articles to either discredit or delete and you see them doing it. They have been given their ammunition to destroy some articles, visible by IPs constantly restoring the same discredited sources. In Kulinski's case, its just numbers ganging up to !vote for the deletion with no basis. Trackinfo (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm seeing is a lot of aspersions and zero evidence to support them. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is simple to deduce. How many wikipedia articles about political commentators currently do not have 26 sources? How many articles in general do not? If you were to suddenly try to remove all of those articles you would overwhelm the system and probably face a revolt. Because of the political nature of the content Kulinski covers, this article is one of a group that were targeted. Artificially elevating the requirements to achieve WP:GNG which is a deliberately ambiguous standard, was the means to achieve the goal. A group of people came here (or were sent here) to get this content removed and the wikipedia hierarchy capitulated. You can say he doesn't achieve the standard until you are blue in the face. Wikipedia history shows the opposite. Trackinfo (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the canvassing that has been perpetrated by the subject of the article, it's somewhat difficult for me to take your argument seriously. Also, GNG is the standard for all articles; it's not as though we arbitrarily invented it just for Kulinski. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove the AfC draft tag and add an edit notice warning against moving to Main: namespace per above. If this draft is been tendentiously resubmitted with little improvement, then the solution here is not deletion, but rather, to remove the AfC tag. ECP brand salt protection can be applied to the Main: namespace article title, to prevent it being moved to the main article space; however, salt protection of Draft: namespace should be used exceedingly sparingly, and I don't think it's necessary here. Doug Mehus T·C 00:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, This is a great idea in principal, but the reality sounds sloppy. What happens when the disruptive editors surrounding this subject just add back AfC markup? Do we then bring it to MfD yet again? Do we block users who attempt that? What about users who might not know about this discussion and and the 247 before them? Sulfurboy (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep As much as I want this to become an article, with the news media (RS) bias not covering progressive hosts but also a lack of published journalism, the article simply won't get past the notability guidelines. Perhaps in the future he will become more notable, but it's still WP:TOOSOON. Buffaboy ^talk 01:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC) I am changing my vote per the rationale below. Buffaboy ^talk 02:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffaboy: But notability doesn't apply to draft namespace...what's the rush? We should just let natural processes take their course. If the editors are working on the draft in namespace, and so long as they're not moving it to main namespace (which could be reason for salting the main namespace title), then I see no reason to delete. Let them work on it, add an edit notice not to move the title, and remove the AfC tag so they cannot bug the AfC reviewers and jam up the AfC queue. Doug Mehus T·C 01:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the correct venue for arguing with an AfD result is WP:DRV. The community has discussed this, at least four times, and concluded the topic is not notable. There is no need for this draft to exist. – bradv🍁 01:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: As you are aware WP:DRV is already closed. While the decision may have been correct at the time, the edits made on 5th and 6th March meet the WP:N and WP:ENT criteria. Please see my detailed comment at the bottom of this page. I hope you will reconsider your position Viktorpp (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: I wasn't aware it's been nominated four times at AfD and, arguably, I think there's a case for salt protecting the main namespace article title with an appropriate level of creation protection given that, but since notability doesn't apply to draft namespace, since draft namespace is not indexed by Google, and since consensus can change, where's the harm in leaving it in non-indexed draft namespace, particularly since other editors have said that the subject is a borderline case of not being notable? This suggests to me, in the not too distant future, the subject may be notable. Leaving this draft would avoid the bureaucracy have having to request the title be unsalted, no? Doug Mehus T·C 01:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mainspace article is salted. And draftspace is not for things that may become notable one day. – bradv🍁 02:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Bradv re: "And draftspace is not for things that may become notable one day," where does it say that, though? My understanding is that Draft: namespace doesn't have any correlation to WP:Notability and since we have no deadlines, so long as it's not unduly promotional, is not an "attack page," etc., this is precisely what draft namespace is for. It seems like we're trying to extend an AfD result to the Draft: namespace title and given that one, maybe two, of the sources listed in the article are borderline qualifying as significant coverage, it seems reasonable to let the draft namespace exist. Nevertheless, if this closes as "delete," I strongly oppose salting above ECP because of the potential near- to medium-term notability. Doug Mehus T·C 02:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're advocating using draftspace as a webhost. This is an encyclopedia.

Doug, I've told you before that the way to handle deletion discussions is to do your research, present a clear, policy-compliant !vote, and then move on. Writing comments that are impossible to parse, pinging other participants with constant questions, and commenting on anything you disagree with just end up annoying the other participants, and only make it harder for the closer to determine consensus. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to go work on something else. – bradv🍁 02:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, point taken. Appreciate your replies as always. (I'll skip the ping since you're busy.) Doug Mehus T·C 03:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (4th nomination), the AfD, was not a slam dunk "delete", and things may change. This is what draftspace is for, a hold place for stuff not (yet) suitable for mainspace. However, out of respect for the AfD, forbid AfC submission, or mainspacing, until 6 months after the AfD close (i.e. until 1 August 2020). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th nomination initiated January 25, 2020, the one that was successful in deleting the article did not respect the decision of the 3rd nomination ended December 19, 2019 (37 days). The political deletionists we allowed to keep asking dad after mom said no. Why should an artificial limit be place on those of us who are trying to retain this content? In the next six months, there will be a great deal of political activity in the U.S., the marketplace Kulinski covers. Literally at any moment, he could become a player in a controversy and the coverage of that will make him instantly, undeniably, notable. Wikipedia users will be searching for who this guy is and your salt will prevent them from knowing. As I have expressed repeatedly, he already is a player in these discussions (including deleted sources, we have shown some 40+ instances). This bad decision is already preventing wikipedia from properly disseminating knowledge about this guy--which is the desired political goal of his attackers. You are suggesting playing into their goals, at the least. Their bad behavior should not be rewarded any further. Trackinfo (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, you are right. AfD4 was too soon after AfD3. I believe that periods given in WP:RENOM should be respected, short of a very good reason. I note that the AfD4 nominator and closer spoke to the recent AfD3 discussion, which may be considered sufficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo is wrong. What they neglected to mention is that the closing statement for AfD3 concludes with the following sentence: If people want to consider a merge to other articles they can discuss so on the talk page, and perhaps folks could also consider a new AFD discussion that is protected from the get-go to avoid another canvassing wave. There's nothing in there about waiting any particular length of time before the next AFD. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Salt enough already. The significant coverage simply isn't there. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article was just recreated in mainspace as Kyle E. Kulinski. I tagged it for G4. Schazjmd (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why we don't keep this stuff around. – bradv🍁 21:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above keeps. We get it, you people want to pretend this guy doesn't exist because he doesn't have the same political views as you, but why are we trying so hard to silence him to the point where we can't even work on an article on him in the draft space? Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 04:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the saying about when your argument has no foundation and you can't attack the substance so you just attack your opposition? That's what you and others are doing. The reality is, you don't know anyone's politics here and making such statements is nothing short of a personal attack, so I suggest you stop and actually argue based on WP:N. Praxidicae (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but we're talking about a page in the draft namespace. It’s not an actual article; it doesn’t need to be top-quality or have a strong argument for notability. Deleting and salting this draft is effectively silencing anyone trying to write a good article about him. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 00:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep after reconsidering my view, and after reconsidering Wikipedia's assessment of the notability of some Internet celebrities. I explain my revised views in this essay, noting that Wikipedia does have articles on people who are famous for being famous. I was the nominator, and I note that my change of my !vote does not withdraw this MFD, because other editors have taken positions on both sides. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We just did this. No new information has arrived in the hours since original deletion. Massive off-wiki canvassing doesn't fix the problems that led to deletion. Guy (help!) 08:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question so, I believe this article is likely to clear the hurdle, but my last two judgements on that question were mistaken so I would like to know what others think about "Kyle Kulinski Speaks, the Bernie Bros Listen". jacobinmag.com. March 4, 2020. EllenCT (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a RS. Guy (help!) 09:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: why not? It has never been challenged as unreliable at WP:RS. Do you consider only centrist sources to be reliable? EllenCT (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Just out of curiosity, why is Jacobin (magazine) neither a reliable source nor able to help establish notability? WP:RS doesn't suggest that magazine publications are unreliable (nor does it include the word magazine at all) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources doesn't mention Jacobin. It's undoubtedly a biased source, but POV sources can be cited to mention notable opinions. Vanilla Wizard 💙 07:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in draftspace / oppose deletion ~~Neutral on draft deletion per WP:TNT prefer no prejudice on recreating a draft from scratch and support temporary WP:SALTing in mainspace~~ (sorry for how long and specific that !vote is). In the last deletion discussion (or maybe it was the one before that, I honestly can't keep track of how many times we've had this discussion) my preference was merging or redirecting the article's title to either The Young Turks (because Kulinski's YouTube channel is mentioned there) or to Justice Democrats because he cofounded it. I still ~~support~~ am open to redirecting to either one of those articles, but my !vote is long enough already. ~~This draft just isn't good.~~ A few of the sources in it are alright, but Kulinski only gets a passing mention in them, so it would make sense to cite them on a page where Kulinski himself is only a passing mention. The article still relies heavily on primary sources (albeit not as much as it used to), but this is still an issue. I'd like to think that one day, we'd have the resources to make a decent biographical article, but with every one of these discussions I'm becoming less and less optimistic that doing so is possible at this time. With all of that said, if an article is ever put back into mainspace, I'd strongly recommend having at minimum pending changes protection. The biggest issue with the quality of the article (and by extension the draft) is how people keep citing his YouTube videos directly to mention various positions that Kulinski has held over the years. I remember how editors here ages ago tried to go through the article and replace the primary sources with secondary sources, but this draft still has the same problems that older versions of the article had. For now, I'll add a template to the article politely asking editors not to add them. Vanilla Wizard 💙 08:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the discussion has since focused on userspace drafts as well, I'd like to clarify that I oppose deleting the editors' userspace copies. This is not an additional !vote, but rather an addon to the first. Userifying an article to work on it after deletion is a common and legitimate practice; deleting copies should only be done on a case-by-case instance, and in this case I disagree that the other editors' copies violate WP:UP#COPIES. It would violate WP:UP if we were discussing antiquated copies left to rot, but what we're discussing is recent copies that were forked by interested editors in order to continue progress on a draft. That is perfectly legitimate. Additionally, if there is any reason to believe that these particular copies are problematic and should be deleted, then their deletion nominations should be standalone, not tacked onto this one. It's okay to propose deleting an article or a draft of an article, but it's taking it too far to propose deleting every existing trace of it in every namespace. If an individual editor abuses their copy in userspace to repeatedly republish it to mainspace, then the individual editor can be warned and the mainspace page can be salted to prevent abuse. This is not the case. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to indicate that I've struck part of my original !vote. After taking some time to think about it, WP:TNT does not and should not apply to drafts. There's no reason to blow up a draft and start over, it's not even published for readers to see to begin with. That said, I ask that the editor who keeps resubmitting it please stop that. Don't resubmit it every time you add another minor addition. Resubmit it if you've worked on it for at least a few months and significantly expanded the worked cited page. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck a lot more of my original !vote now that other editors have done more than enough to convince me that sources already establish notability, at least to the point where I can no longer support SALTing. I had already become decidedly against deleting the draft, as an article does not need to be notable enough to be in mainspace to continue existing in draftspace, so that much is out of question. Is the article ready to be in mainspace? I'm honestly starting to believe that it is. Is that what we're discussing at this MfD? No. That said, my sole reason for supporting temporary SALTing of 3 to 6 months was to ensure that editors could not continuously recreate the article until after there's been enough time for more work to be done on the draft and more sources could be added to guarantee that it was notable. I'm now of the belief that this would be unnecessary, and I'm more than happy to admit that my original !vote was dead wrong on multiple counts. The editors who've been presenting their best sources to us in this discussion & continuously working to improve the article deserve our appreciation. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep draft, delete userspace fork. This was just hashed out at DRV. I've also added User:Trackinfo/Kyle Kulinski to the nomination; it's a copy-paste of this (or maybe the other way around), and a violation of WP:UP#COPIES. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced the WP:THREE sources noted here are good enough to survive another WP:AfD, but they're good enough for a draft. So, I'm OK with keeping the draft around. The userspace fork(s) should still be deleted per WP:CFORK and WP:UP#COPIES. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith this is another though it appears to have attribution. Praxidicae (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Added that too, for exactly the same reasons. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I also found User:PortugueseBacon/KyleKulinski. This one doesn't worry me so much, so I'm not adding it to the nomination, but wouldn't have any objection if somebody else felt the need to do so. It's not a copy-paste, and predates this by three years, so it's obviously not an attempt at an end-run around the AfD/DRV. Still, it is about a topic that has been clearly determined to not be notable, so pinging PortugueseBacon just so they're aware of the controversy. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that my sandbox copy of this article is also being nominated for deletion is about as blatant evidence as is possible that this is politically motivated and intended to make this content go away. I have also kept a copy of this content off line. Users who have new sources and wish to improve this article can contact me. We will bring this article back. Your opinion of politics should not govern what the world is allowed to learn from wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You are completely entitled to keep a copy off-line; the CC-SA license it was published under makes that clear. But, stashing away copies of deleted articles in userspace because you disagree with their deletion isn't a valid use of userspace, as WP:UP#COPIES explains. The next section ("User pages that look like articles") also says, Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This. The same has happened to my userspace draft, which I have since U1 deleted to reduce association between my userspace and this AfD. The fact that we're trying to destroy every remnant of this article—even drafts—convinces me that there are definitely other motives behind this. I doubt many of these people are just trying to enforce policy; they're just trying to find every possible excuse to erase this man off Wikipedia. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 23:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Jimbo Wales from the AFD:

"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)"

Keep Absolutely no reason to delete this. Honestly, this is starting to look like a political thing, to keep Kulinski off Wikipedia. I'm not the biggest fan of his, but I think he is notable enough for an article. The possibility of one should not be torpedoed at every instance. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable for all the reasons expressed in four AfDs and at the latest deletion review. The article should have survived deletion at the fourth AfD without a Supervote by the closer. And the deletion review participants were clearly in favor of allowing draft. about a dozen participants acknowledged the refund or said allow draft and four said allow recreation. Lightburst (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason to destroy a draft of this person. More work can be done on it, and with that many YouTube fans they pass the subject specific guidelines for WP:Entertainer anyway. Earlier today additional reliable sources were found that mention him[2] that weren't found before. Let the draft continue to develop and it'll be a proper article. Dream Focus 03:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous references in reliable sources (The Guardian, CNN, Fox News, Rolling Stone, Yahoo!, IMDB, and multiple books from such publishers as Rowman & Littlefield, Macmillan, etc) to this person, over time and in multiple contexts. CNN calls him "prominent liberal" (page includes reference). The notability requirement is met Viktorpp (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC) — Viktorpp (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- - 1. How many edits I have made is irrelevant to the consideration of the question whether the edits made by me are quality edits or not and whether my contribution to the discussion is valuable or not.
  - 2. The statement that I have not made edits outside this topic is not accurate. What you mean is I haven't made many edits to English-language Wiki outside of this topic. I joined Wikipedia in 2010, and have made significant contributions including full new pages and edits to old ones in Hungarian language Wiki and Media Commons See stats

Comment

1. Jacobin magazine just did a profile covering exclusively Kulinski and that's included in the references. This is an independent (unrelated to Kulinski) and reliable (print magazine with large circulation and meeting WP:N) source. Similarly, IMDB has pages for both Kulinski and his show. Finally Politicon has a profile page for Kulinski.

2. I would implore the editors to actually review the new sourcing and not dismiss it as passing mention based on their past experience. While a single passing mention clearly doesn't meet the WP:N guideline, I don't concur that all the sourcing from CNN, The Guardian, Fox News, Rolling Stone, Yahoo!, Vice etc are passing mentions. The passing mentions are in relation to founding Justice Democrats. But in the sources referred to above, he is quoted as an authority figure. It's clear that he is considered an authority figure by these publications, because they refer to him as "prominent liberal" and "internet idol".

Sample mentions (seems a bit more than passing mention) from publications (I have substituted "Quote" for the words of Kulinski they were quoting):

"Quote" tweeted Kyle Kulinski, a prominent liberal and YouTube host. - CNN

Commentators and analysts have since asked whether candidates shelled out thousands of dollars to crowd the expensive seats with their own supporters. “Quote,” said Kyle Kulinski, host of the Kyle Kulinski show, “Quote” - The Guardian

To some creators accustomed to the company’s previously hands-off approach, however, such new standards could prove costly. Kyle Kulinski, a progressive commentator with nearly 678,000 subscribers to his channel Secular Talk, said in a video Thursday that YouTube’s decision to demonetize Crowder’s channel could set a precedent for other channels not deemed brand-safe. “Quote” said Kulinski, a frequent Trump critic who railed on Crowder for several minutes. “Quote” Kulinski and others referenced previous “Adpocalypses,” such as in 2017, when major corporations momentarily pulled ads from YouTube after they appeared next to racist content. YouTube responded by tweaking its ad placements to ensure that companies like Coca-Cola or General Motors were in more family friendly territory. - Vice

Secular Talk host Kyle Kulinski similarly tweeted, "Quote" - Fox

And Kyle Kulinski, a popular lefty YouTuber and co-founder of Justice Democrats, called on DNC Chair Tom Perez to resign. “Quote,” Kulinski said on Twitter. “Quote.” - Vice

Kyle Kulinski, a host of a show on the liberal The Young Turks network who supports Sanders, attacked both Biden and "the establishment" as he made a plea to Democratic voters to gather behind Sanders rather than Biden. "Quote," Kulinski tweeted. - Fox

Joe Rogan has experience with interviewing both progressive and conservative thinkers. Figures such as Andrew Yang (D), Tulsi Gabbard (D), Kyle Kulinski (D), Gary Johnson (L), Benjamin Shapiro (R), and Candace Owens (R), have all appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience program. - Yahoo!

And of course, Express and Real Clear Politics have run pieces in which Kulinski is the main subject.

3. Further to the aforementioned sourcing, I posit that the WP:ENT criteria are less stringent than WP:N. There are 3 alternative criteria and Kulinski passes muster on all in my opinion:

"Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." - so the YouTube subscriptions (800k) or Twitter following (300k) should also not be dismissed as invalid when discussing notability.

"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - As mentioned in Draft_talk:Kyle_Kulinski#WP:ENTERTAINER Kulinski has his own show, which is listed on IMDB, but also played a major role (primary guest) on episode of notable Joe Rogan Experience and multiple times on notable Rising (news show).

"Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." - I would argue it is prolific that Secular Talk has had 1500+ episodes Viktorpp (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC) — Viktorpp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This guy may be marginally notable, but that 800K subscribers on Youtube translates to the 21,970th most-subscribed channel if we can believe socialblade. # of subscribers does not prove notability. And no, this is not politically motivated. I've made the same arguments at Mark Dice. --valereee (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Viktorpp please stop trying to bludgeon this discussion by taking it to the talk pages of everyone here who you think it disagreeing with you. That's obnoxious. --valereee (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People need to remember that the reason this was nominated for deletion via MfD is not just because of notability concerns, but because the draft was being continually submitted in a disruptive manner without improvement on the issues of notability addressed by previous deletion discussions. If this is kept and editors continue working on this, then a solution by consensus needs to be implemented so that this isn't continually resubmitted. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that it's only a small group of editors (EllenCT, Falseinfinity, and Viktorpp) who are continually resubmitting it disruptively, and they really need to stop wasting the AFC volunteers' time, but draftspace does not belong to them nor anyone else and their disruptive behavior doesn't warrant deleting content that isn't theirs to begin with. This deletion discussion is wasting more time for more people than anything they've done so far. Just temporarily salt the mainspace page for three to six months to prevent abuse, warn users who continue to engage in disruptive behavior, and leave the draft to be worked on by people who just want to improve it. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't strictly object to deleting the draft. Deleting the userspace versions, though, is more problematic, even if there's been copying within Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride, principles #4 and #5. I think the only safe route for doing that is to nominate the userspace copies for deletion separately, in an unbundled way, and allow the users involved the opportunity to talk to us. That would be a laborious and process-intensive project, and I do feel it's a lot simpler to leave the userspace copies alive and just salt all the variations of Mr Kulinski's name. Then leave it to deletion review to do its job.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no problem here that can't be handled by ECP, both for this page and the corresponding mainspace. Let the concerns be addressed - although the DRV concluded that the AfD closure was correct at the time, there was no consensus as to whether to allow recreation. With that in mind, deleting the draft seems plain spiteful. Smartyllama (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With Jacobin and Santa Clarita Gazette, there are two full article profiles of the guy, along with the other currently 50 plus sources making mention of his significance . . . and the other deleted sources. At some point in time, you are going to have to pull your fingers out of your ears and stop humming. I think the article has demonstrated notability to qualify it for mainspace NOW. Yet all you seem to do is chastise people trying to tell you that. Of course the resistance is politically motivated. How many MfDs get this much attention? And particularly, how many get comments from this many people out of the woodworks, outside of the usual suspects. Frankly in almost 13 years on wikipedia, as an active fighter for inclusion on +- a thousand AfDs, I've never even heard of an MfD before. This is way out of the mainstream. Do you think the content of the article might have something to do with that? Get your politics out of posterior and consider this on the merits consistent with virtually any other notable political commentator. The majority of the ones I have sampled have fewer than ten sources. Wikipedia is filled with stub, marginally sourced BLP articles. I know, hide behind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Wha wha. Why does this guy have to reach such herculean standards to have his name present on wikipedia? Trackinfo (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is in draftspace because it was deleted at AfD. It is at MfD because it has been tendentiously resubmitted. Herculean? No. It was found not notable. If you disagree, see WP:THREE. What are the three best sources that demonstrate notability? Three sources. You pick the best. Not more than three. No walls of text. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jackobin, Santa Clarita Gazette, Good look like a good start. Trackinfo (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think this might be a GNG pass.

1 [3] by Connor Kilpatrick, 03.03.2020 (post AfD), I am pretty sure it is sufficiently independent, and it meets all other WP:GNG requirements.

2 [4] by Eric Goldin January 9, 2020. Also looks good. Was it discussed in the AfD?

3 [5] by Eric Pfeiffer 07.11.17 (old). I am not sure that this meets the GNG, as it is not about Kyle, rather it sources Kyle for content. However, if Kyle Kulinski is not notable, why is the article citing him, and even from the title?

I should review very carefully the last AfD, to check reasons for deletion against these sources. The AfD is a mess and hard to read, so many non constructive !votes to wade through. Later. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing source #1 against the WP:GNG. Is it Reliable? Is it Independent? Does the author comment on the subject directly and in detail

1. https://jacobinmag.com/2020/03/kyle-kulinski-bernie-bros-secular-talk-joe-rogan-youtube

Reliable? Jacobin (magazine). Appears reliable. Yes.

Independent. Is the publisher, author, and source of the information independent of the subject? Publication Jacobin (magazine) & author Conner Kilpatrick do not appear connected. From the article: "I (the author) do like Kulinski, had come across his show several years ago, and, all things considered, he seemed pretty good". This is not a close connection. One paragraph (“I have no time ...) shows that they had at least one conversation, but it sounds like only one conversation. Is the article promotinal, an advertorial? "Kulinski’s fiery rhetoric, razor-sharp class instincts, and knack for withering takedowns sets him apart from his peers" is a little bit promotional? "Despite his enormous fan base, his show has never once been mentioned in the obligatory trend pieces ..." "Just last week, his Wikipedia page was deleted" - OK, be careful, Wikipedia must not reference things that reference Wikipedia. "There is nothing “cool” about Kulinski’s show" tells me that this commentary is not a simple puff piece, but it does keep swinging back to praise. Is there any critical commentary? "At the time, Kulinski was living with his grandmother, attending Iona College as a political science major while his mom went back to work.

“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. From here to the end, all of the authors commentary is clearly coming straight from the information provided by the subject. The author relaxes into writing a prosified interview of the subject. This is not independent enough. What is needed instead of this is a commentary piece that does not have a subject quote in every paragraph or two, but has more author-created critical commentary of the subject, and has more evidence that the author has collected and speaks to information that did not come direct from the subject.

Not independent. This source cannot count as one of the two minimum GNG-meeting sources. Close, but no. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

#2. https://santaclaritafree.com/gazette/opinion/the-passion-of-kyle-kulinski January 9, 2020 by Eric Goldin.

https://santaclaritafree.com/about A local online and print weekly publication. Office is located at 26330 Diamond Pl Suite 100 in Santa Clarita, you can reach us at 661-298-5330. Real address, looks OK as a reliable source.

"... there are principled and knowledgeable people out there who are willing to go much farther beyond the surface. One of them is Kyle Kulinski.
In a previous article, I wrote some harsh and immature things about Kulinski. " Nice, strongly indicating that the authors opinions have not come from the subject, but from the author.

"Despite having conservative family members ..." The introduction of the subject is from a perspective much longer than arms reach. This is feeling more independent.

"Kulinski is a proud progressive liberal and he makes it clear that his show leans very heavily to the left. Kyle strongly advocates for things like a living wage, protecting Social Security, free college, getting rid of big corporate PAC money in politics, along with a plethora of other things. He doesn’t believe there’s necessarily anything wrong with having strong political positions ..." This is direct secondary source coverage of the subject. The question I am wondering is why does the author think this? Could this be a PR script? "Kulinski despises moderate Democrats" does not feel like a PR script, but does feel like third party commentary, which is good. "Kulinski’s style might rub people the wrong way initially. His presentation is very different from that of a mainstream broadcaster. Many hosts will put on a faux “professional” speaking voice and meander around the issues. Kulinski is brash and in-your-face. By his own admission ...". This is reading like author opinion, independent author opinion.

I count this source, #2, as meeting the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

#3 https://www.good.is/features/kyle-kulinski-sanders-trump by Eric Pfeiffer, dated 07.11.17

This article begins about Trump, but mentions KK. "... of Secular Talk host Kyle Kulinski, a popular figure in progressive politics, who says ..." This is more than a passing mention, but short of direct coverage in detail.

"the 29-year-old pundit who supports a growing roster of anti-corporate candidates under the Justice Democrats banner said" This is another strong mention but short of direct coverage. Paragraphs 6-7 report KK, they are not about KK. Paragraph 8 is about the "Justice Democrats" and KK is a mere mention. Paragraph 9 is more reporting of KK's comments on national politics. To the end continues to the end, it is about politics, and is not about KK. This source is not direct coverage in detail on the subject.

Source #3 Does not meet the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trackinfo, sorry, but on careful analysis of your three proffered sources, I score only #2 as meeting the WP:GNG. #1 fails on being sufficiently independent of the subject. #3 fails on being direct coverage of the subject. With two meeting the GNG, I would campaign to have the draft mainspaced. With one meeting it, it definitely worthy of drafting, and waiting to find a second reliable independent source directly covering the subject in detail. Given that source #1 is only days old, I think there is a good change of finding the second qualifying source soon. Good luck. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, given only three sources, you can certainly get very nit-picky. There are 53 other mentions of this subject in the sources of the article, last I looked. Yes, some are overkill. All this artificial, political resistance of people called to this deletion discussion leads the others who are trying to save this content to try to pound some sense into this highly flawed process. If I were deletion inclined, I could produce dozens of different political commentators who exist now with far more flimsy cases for notability. I don't want to play a tit for tat war. It took four tries for the delete people to gang up and !vote this out. And it was an improper AfD at that, a mere 37 days after the third attempt. Do not keep hanging on that flimsy, bad decision. It is not gospel. I have no doubt there will be additional sources produced in the future simply because Kulinski is constantly producing new content that keeps getting noticed. And I expect that even if the New York Times wrote a page 1 profile on him, there would still be this same class of political opponents who will show up trying to give an excuse to delete his article or demand sources to discredit Kulinski be included if an article reappears. That is what is happening all over wikipedia right now. By applying escalated standards just to this article, you are aiding and abetting those bad actors. Trackinfo (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I was not canvased, I inserted the Good Magazine source into this article back in 2017. Its one of (currently) 16,000 articles I watch. Trackinfo (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, I am very nit-picky because it will take a very solid case to reverse the recent AfD given the endorsement at DRV. Being this nit-picky is exhausting, which is why the onus is on the proponents to select the three best sources. I would like to help you, my gut feel is that this person is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, but if I were to take this back to DRV, and push comes to shove over the best sources, I would lose the argument and that would not help. Sorry. Ping me if you find a source better than #1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Draft space is supposed to house drafts, which by definition, are inferior in quality to actual articles. Therefore GNG and other notability guidelines cannot be used to argue for a draft's deletion. However, being pragmatic, and not being blind to the fact that this may escalate into a charade of draft submission contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia editing, the draft should be protected with ECP. A notice should also be placed on the draft that it may only be moved to mainspace after an administrator allows it. This will allow users to edit the draft if they want, but it will not be moved to mainspace. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (originally !voted delete/salt) After reconsidering my original views and copy-editing the draft for a bit, I think that it's marginally notable enough for inclusion once it's developed further. I did remove quite a few references that failed my refcheck on it, as well as some non-notable and original sources. There were a few primary sources that I erred on the side of caution on and left in place, though. On another note, I think the amount of tendentious editing, battleground mentality, off-wiki canvassing, and disruption to make a point for this draft article has been completely abhorrent and needlessly disruptive, especially for the AFC reviewers who had to keep rejecting the article after it kept getting submitted for review. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the draft It meets the standard for draft space , that it has potential for an article. Given the past history, it would be well to be vary careful about making sure it shows notability before returning it to mainspace. The arguments above for whether he is or is not notable are irrelevant in draft space--we should remove a draft if it's hopeless to show notability, but this is not hopeless. If anyone wants to work on the draft, I'd suggest the first step might be a purge to the more significant and more reliable among the references. DGG ( talk ) 10:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the draft This article might not have survived AfDs but that doesn't mean that it NEVER has the potential to satisfy notability. I don't quite understand the emotional reaction some seem to have about keeping a draft around just because the previous articles didn't meet GNG. It doesn't seem like this individual is going away and there is the likelihood of him receiving more substantial coverage in reliable sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.