Talk:Kyle Kulinski/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Untitled

Discussion moved to User talk:Trackinfo/Kyle Kulinski. EllenCT (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 May 2020

Change 

[[:Category:1988 births]]
[[:Category:21st-century American journalists]]
[[:Category:21st-century atheists]]
[[:Category:Activists from New Rochelle, New York]]
[[:Category:American agnostics]]
[[:Category:American anti-war activists]]
[[:Category:American atheists]]
[[:Category:American humanists]]
[[:Category:American male journalists]]
[[:Category:American media critics]]
[[:Category:American online journalists]]
[[:Category:American people of Italian descent]]
[[:Category:American people of Polish descent]]
[[:Category:American podcasters]]
[[:Category:American political journalists]]
[[:Category:American political commentators]]
[[:Category:American radio DJs]]
[[:Category:American radio producers]]
[[:Category:American secularists]]
[[:Category:American skeptics]]
[[:Category:American social commentators]]
[[:Category:American social democrats]]
[[:Category:American talk radio hosts]]
[[:Category:American web producers]]
[[:Category:American YouTubers]]
[[:Category:Criticism of political correctness]]
[[:Category:Critics of religions]]
[[:Category:Free speech activists]]
[[:Category:Iona College (New York) alumni]]
[[:Category:Journalists from New York (state)]]
[[:Category:Left-libertarians]]
[[:Category:Left-wing populism in the United States]]
[[:Category:Living people]]
[[:Category:Male YouTubers]]
[[:Category:New York (state) Democrats]]
[[:Category:New York (state) Independents]]
[[:Category:Non-interventionism]]
[[:Category:Opinion journalists]]
[[:Category:Religious skeptics]]
[[:Category:Secular humanists]]
[[:Category:Social critics]]
[[:Category:The Young Turks (talk show)]]

to 

{{Draft categories|1=
[[Category:1988 births]]
[[Category:21st-century American journalists]]
[[Category:21st-century atheists]]
[[Category:Activists from New Rochelle, New York]]
[[Category:American agnostics]]
[[Category:American anti-war activists]]
[[Category:American atheists]]
[[Category:American humanists]]
[[Category:American male journalists]]
[[Category:American media critics]]
[[Category:American online journalists]]
[[Category:American people of Italian descent]]
[[Category:American people of Polish descent]]
[[Category:American podcasters]]
[[Category:American political journalists]]
[[Category:American political commentators]]
[[Category:American radio DJs]]
[[Category:American radio producers]]
[[Category:American secularists]]
[[Category:American skeptics]]
[[Category:American social commentators]]
[[Category:American social democrats]]
[[Category:American talk radio hosts]]
[[Category:American web producers]]
[[Category:American YouTubers]]
[[Category:Criticism of political correctness]]
[[Category:Critics of religions]]
[[Category:Free speech activists]]
[[Category:Iona College (New York) alumni]]
[[Category:Journalists from New York (state)]]
[[Category:Left-libertarians]]
[[Category:Left-wing populism in the United States]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Male YouTubers]]
[[Category:New York (state) Democrats]]
[[Category:New York (state) Independents]]
[[Category:Non-interventionism]]
[[Category:Opinion journalists]]
[[Category:Religious skeptics]]
[[Category:Secular humanists]]
[[Category:Social critics]]
[[Category:The Young Turks (talk show)]]
}}

KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: That is unnecessary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is this a Draft article?

His notability is evident in his numbers, I don't understand how suppressing him is allowed? I am not naive to agendas against progressive thought but Kyle is a pretty standard Leftist, but with a large following and clearly more influential than 100s of other individuals that I could name who happily have a Wikipedia article made public. Sort out your drama, nobody cares. Officially Mr X (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Please help editors review this article

I came to this article via Page Curation. I can see why it has been such a struggle to get it out of draft. The article sprawls, and there is no clear indication which sources best attest to this subject's notability. To aid review, could an editor who is familiar with this subject identify the three Reliable Sources which best indicate this subject's notability? --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's a few sources that give him more than a just passing mention:
The WP:GNG states that the subject must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I would argue that the coverage in all 6 sources is "significant," with the most significant being #1 which is essentially an in-depth bio (that BTW mentions his Wikipedia page getting deleted). Also, I would argue all 6 sources are reliable – yes, some of these sources (e.g. Jacobin and The Intercept) may have left-leaning biases, but according to WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Furthermore, with the possible exception of source #3 which does involve a direct interview with the subject, all the sources are independent of the subject.
Admittedly, this article has struggled to get sources that go beyond passing mentions or self-published material from the subject's YouTube channel or Twitter account, something that is to be expected for a person who tends to be hostile towards, or at least highly critical of, mainstream media outlets. Furthermore, many of the pro-keep arguments that have been made in past AfD nominations merely accuse the pro-delete people of having a "neoliberal bias" against the subject, without addressing the WP:GNG problem. This is an attempt to address that directly by providing several sources that I would argue are 1) reliable, 2) independent of the subject, and 3) provide significant coverage of the subject. ECTran71 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
As someone who nominated the article for deletion once, has listened to the subject's show on a weekly basis for five years, and who knows people behind the scenes, I agree with your analysis. The subject himself has called out Wikipedia and conversed with Jimmy Wales about his absence. However, most of the listening base of his show do not understand the quality control that goes into maintaining Wikipedia and the precedents in place for articles to stand. It is just an unfortunate paradox that being critical of what is essentially all WP:RS will result in passing mentions in "non-neutral" sources. At the same time, there are those who don't fit into this description such as Krystal Ball and Cenk Uygur. Both have had MSNBC shows. So until there's a biopic done on the subject, or the subject does something notable (i.e. run for office, appear on mainstream news), notability as judged by WP:RS will be scant. Buffaboy talk 03:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
For the most part, with the exception of the Jacobin piece, these are not significant coverage (as expanded at WP:GNG) of the article subject. - Ryk72 talk 22:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Notability Requirements

For the love of Christ how many more articles do you need? Here is a new one by the Washington Examiner describing Joe Rogan's election night event which will feature Kyle Kulinski (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/plot-twist-joe-rogan-announces-election-special-featuring-alex-jones-and-kyle-kulinski). In case you didn't know, THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE IS THE MOST POPULAR PODCAST ON THE PLANET AND KYLE HAS BEEN ON IT 3 TIMES ALREADY!!!

It's an absolute travesty that a political commentator with a Youtube channel with nearly a million subscribers and videos which have an average of tens of thousands of views per video is still not on the English Wikipedia, despite it having an article in numerous other languages (despite the fact that Kyle Kulinski is an AMERICAN).

Come at me Sandstein, Robert McClenon, Cryptic, Snooganssnoogans, Phil Bridger, Praxidicae, Rhododendrites, and the like.

Some editors will likely say that the Washington Examiner is not a reliable source. While that might be sufficient, I don't think it's necessary. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is not significant coverage, as expanded at that guideline. - Ryk72 talk 22:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Bro you can't be serious. "Some editors will likely say"... aren't those weasel words? The Washington Examiner is listed as being in the same category as Business Insider, National Review, and Salon. The article in question isn't being judged on the veracity of its claims; the only reason it's relevant to this discussion is because it's a source independent to the subject of this Wikipedia article.
What is it with you guys and Kyle Kulinski? The man interviewed Senator Bernie Sanders on his show, a candidate for President who nearly won the Democratic primary for God's sake. He was the first guest on Glenn Greenwald's podcast. He has been a reoccurring contributor on The Young Turks and The Hill's Rising program. Does he have to be the featured guest on Jimmy Kimmel or be interviewed by 60 Minutes to finally be considered noteworthy?
I really want to go on a tirade about how Wikipedia has an establishment media bias and overreliance on old media (which is ironic, given the fact that this platform is entirely crowdsourced and is itself a product of the Internet). I'm too lazy too write it though, so I'll save it for another day.
Aren't those weasel words? They certainly are. I don't have a problem with the WE. I recognise that other editors do. The issue that I see with this source, and raised above, is that it does not provide significant coverage of the article subject. The man interviewed Senator Bernie Sanders on his show, a candidate for President who nearly won the Democratic primary for God's sake. He was the first guest on Glenn Greenwald's podcast. He has been a reoccurring contributor on The Young Turks and The Hill's Rising program. And yet, there appears to have been very little written about him. - Ryk72 talk 02:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Ryk72, how is it not significant coverage if the entire article is about the subjects (Kulinskis) reaction to cohosting the election coverage with Joe Rogan and Alex Jones? He is the focus of that article... Jeremiasss (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jeremiasss: if the entire article is about the subjects (Kulinskis) reaction It's not. He is the focus of that article... He's not. The article is about a prospective Joe Rogan podcast on US Election Day. To ask another question: For what information about "Kyle Kulinski", that might reasonably appear in an encyclopaedia, could this article be used as a source? If the answer is not much, it's not significant coverage. - Ryk72 talk 05:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Found Wikidata item

Great news! I just found Kulinski's Wikidata item (Q29833619). This should improve notability of the article greatly and make it easier to push it out of draft stage. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Wikidata counts as making a draft notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Is he notable yet?

I went to create this article today, and I found this draft. Great job on the draft, guys. This is a thoroughly fleshed out article and much better than anything I could have written from scratch.

I'm surprised that an article with FIFTY THREE SOURCES IN IT is judged as being non-notable and unable to survive AfD. Bummer. If you make another push to publish this, let me know. I definitely think he is notable.

A similar article on a progressive pundit that has less sources but that is fully published: Krystal Ball – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Some clarity regarding coverage of the subject

Holy, I came across this draft and was shocked that a draft of this detail and with this number of sources was rejected this many times. I understand the subject is a political figure, I don't know how much that is playing into all this, but I noticed the primary issue draft reviewers had was a (lack of / unclear) notability from sources. For some elucidation, I'm outlining the sources on the list in which the subject is addressed in some degree of detail in hopes to help to refine the article.

Extensive Sources where Kulinski is the main subject
  • "Kyle Kulinski Speaks, the Bernie Bros Listen" - Kulinski is the subject of the article with extensive detail. Jacobin is a NY-based political magazine. Clear source contributing to sig cov
  • "Watch: Our New Weekly Video Commentary and Interview Program, System Update, Debuts Today" - Transcript of Interview w/ Glen Greenwald
  • "Kyle Kulinski Of The Young Turks Says Democrats Need To Change Before They Can Defeat Trump" - Article effectively outlines one of Kulinski's political arguments. Fair amount detail on Kulinski and his ::affiliates.
Minor/Smaller Sources where Kulinski is prominently featured
  • "Fox News: Left-wing Radio host SHUT DOWN in hilarious TV clash over future of US Democrats" - Article quotes Fox News interaction of Kulinski. Little detail on Kulinski himself. If source is going to be ::used, I would find the original Fox News clip and use that instead of this tabloid
  • "'Justice Democrat' Coal Miner's Daughter Paula Swearingen Announces Primary Challenge Against West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin" - Article quotes Kulinski in its entirety
Articles from the 'Inquisitr', all written by the same writer, effectively echoing Kulinski's tweets and arguments from his show in their entirety. Probably not WP:IS
  • "Kyle Kulinski Blasts Trump Administration For Soleimani Strike: ‘This Is The Whims Of Psychos’" - Article quoting Kulinski's tweets. Little detail on Kulinski himself
  • "Pete Buttigieg Blasted As ‘Textbook Definition Of A Flip Flopping Fraud’" - Article quotes Kulinski's tweets.
  • "Kyle Kulinski Hits Back Against Accusations Of Sexism For Trolling Elizabeth Warren’s Dancing" - Article quoting Kulinski in its entirety
  • "Kyle Kulinski Says ‘Neoliberal Trolls’ Had His Wikipedia Page Deleted"
Small articles and/or associated clips from 'Rising' on The Hill TV. Kulinski is evidently a regular interviewee. Little detail on Kulinski himself in any however
  • "Kyle Kulinski: What went wrong for the Sanders campaign"
  • "Kyle Kulinski on why Biden is beating Trump in the polls - Similar to above
  • "Progressive activist: Sanders 'at his best when he's an angry old man"
  • "Kyle Kulinski: Will the establishment fall in line behind Bernie?"
  • "Progressive commentator Kyle Kulinski: Why the media dismisses Gabbard, Yang, and Sanders"
Kulinski is quoted, but not the main subject
  • "YouTube's Bungled Crackdown On Steven Crowder Only Made Him Stronger" - Vice article. Kulinski is mentioned briefly and quoted alongside David Pakman (pundit of similar size w/ article)
  • "Digital Civil War: Confronting the Far-Right Menace" - Kulinski is quoted briefly in well-known political activist Peter Daou's book. Little detail on Kulinski himself
  • "Sanders campaign rails against 'nervous' establishment, as candidates flock to Biden" - Fairly extensive quoting of Kulinski in this Fox News article. Little detail on Kulinski himself
  • "Kyle Kulinski: Donald Trump's Claim To Be Anti-Establishment Is A Sham, It's A Hustle" - Small article quoting Kulinski's appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast
  • "Kyle Kulinski: Donald Trump's Claim To Be Anti-Establishment Is A Sham, It's A Hustle" - Small article quoting Kulinski's appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast
  • "Wikipedia formally censors The Grayzone as regime-change advocates monopolize editing" - Kulinski used as example of alleged censoring on Wikipedia
  • "The Two Choices Bernie Backers Have Left" - Article quotes Kulinski's tweets
  • "Ocasio-Cortez ‘Could Be Facing Jail Time’ If Control Over PAC Was Intentionally Hidden, Former FEC Commissioner Says" - Briefly quotes Kulinski regarding his leaving the Justice Democrats
  • "MSNBC's Joy Reid rips Sanders supporters for not backing Biden as 'privileged white voters'" - Kulinski quoted, little personal detail

I think after actually looking through these sources the problem with the article is clearer. The majority of substantive sources are really just quoting or featuring Kulinski as an opinion piece, rather than actually covering him. So far as reliable, secondary sources go, you really only have the Jacobin article that covers Kulinski in any substantive manner without just being him speaking or echoing what he has said. Kulinski seems to be one of those subjects that you think really should be found notable, but doesn't gel well with Wikipedia's guidelines because of the type of coverage he gets.

That said, guidelines are just that, and I personally think that even just this list should be sufficient to establish broad significant coverage. Guidelines aside, its clear that the subject is a prominent political figure that is regularly featured/quoted in the media. As others have pointed out, equivalent/similar figures have articles with a lesser degrees of coverage. While he may have been a case of WP:TOOSOON when the draft was first submitted, I think the magnitude of recent coverage should belay that issue. If not, this subject really only needs one or two more good sources before his inclusion into the mainspace is inarguable. ƒin (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I was unaware of the Jacobin article, but I think that you laid out in great detail the conundrum/quandary that this article faces. There's no denying the Kyle Kulinski is notable: he's a recurring host on a daily news program with nearly a million followers, has almost a million followers in his own right, and is arguably more prominent than many other biographies that are currently on Wikipedia with only a paragraph's worth of text (and there are a ton of these types of articles). As I said at the outset, the Jacobin article is a great secondary source. It goes into detail on Kyle and gives context as to where he fits in this political punditry/commentary landscape. Then there's also Justice Democrats, which he helped found, which has helped a number of current congressmen/women get to where they are today.
I guess all we can do at this point is wait. His following is not declining, despite the best efforts of YouTube (in my opinion) to censor him. Contrary to what he and his fellow followers may believe, of whom I ally myself with, there really isn't a "neoliberal cabal" here trying to take down these articles. There will always be editors such as myself who realize that coverage in secondary media is biased. Hopefully this changes with time. Buffaboy talk 23:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Santa Clarita Gazette article

People here seem to forget about:

With the Jacobin Article, the Santa Clarita Gazette Article, and the three Inquisitr articles, Kyle Kulinski meets WP:GNG. I don't think this is debatable. All that is needed is to integrate the two drafts and resubmit.

To sway the admins, we could have everyone who worked on this article and draft submit a reason why they feel this article should be published, and what changed since the article was deleted. If we wait too long, other half-baked submissions will be made like the September one that will weaken our case. Mottezen (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Possibly they don't forget so much as not agree that a non-staff opinion piece in the Santa Clarita Gazette & Free Classifieds is definitely a RS. Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? - Ryk72 talk 09:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the Santa Clarita can contribute to a broader WP:SIGCOV, but it is unlikely to significantly sway this draft towards that threshold. The article itself is, as Ryk72 points out, written by a non-staff contributor in opinion and it would certainly be an uphill battle establishing the Gazette as a stalwart example of reputable fact-checking (see just some of the other articles published recently). I agree that the drafts need to be integrated, preferably in this draft, which I will endeavour to do. I think the abnormal nature of the draft and its relationship with WP:GNG guidelines does call for some form of submitted rationale to help with draft submission. What avenue do you suggest for such reasoning? ƒin (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
To those interested, in order to make things clearer, I have a copy of this draft on one of my subpages, where I am combining/editing this and the draft on trackinfo's page for the next few days. I'm keeping it separate from those pages while I do some editing to generally word it in a more encyclopedic fashion, clean up references, etc. My goal is to have an up-to-date article that can act as an evolution to this draft. All are welcome to contribute :) ƒin (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Fin 22, Thanks for working on this. One suggestion, if I may. I think this draft is currently located in 3 places: here, your userspace, and Trackinfo's userspace. I think we should consider making all of our changes to this draft, so that we don't duplicate work or have to merge changes later. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Good idea. I've published the integrated version onto this page, and I'll let User:Trackinfo know about the integration so we have one unified copy. ƒin (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe pick one draft and make all edits there

Having two drafts may be confusing and create double work. I'd like to propose that we make all edits to this draft and this talk page from now on. I bring this up because somebody is suggesting that we make edits to a different draft above. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Definitely agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As the other page, User:Trackinfo/Kyle Kulinski, as a 08:12, 12 April 2020‎ fork, that page should be redirected back to this one. Check for anything to merge.
More importantly, there was a lot of discussion on its talk page, User talk:Trackinfo/Kyle Kulinski. I suggest checking the threads there, and making a fresh case here for notability based upon the three best WP:GNG-meeting sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @SmokeyJoe: That draft (User:Trackinfo) hasn't been edited in over a month. We could history merge if we want to, delete it, or just leave it be and pretend it doesn't exist. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I’m more concerned about it’s talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
      • @SmokeyJoe: That talk page hasn't been edited significantly since September 2020. We can easily merge the discussions and history with this talk page. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I asked Trackinfo one time, and I don't think he would be onboard with any redirects or deletion of content on his end (the Trackinfo draft and Trackinfo draft talk). Just FYI. I think just agreeing to edit this copy for now is probably the best we can do. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft Resubmission

With the recent changes to the draft, I believe that it is now in a state such that its inclusion into the mainspace is inarguable. I think a combination of bloated references and the unconventional nature of this particular niche of political coverage means that this draft has had a difficult time being approved. However, the fairly substantial coverage of Kulinski during the 2020 US election has certainly belied the notability issues of the original article prior to deletion. We cannot have a situation where editors are continually resubmitting over the course of months, as this will further delegitimise the draft, so I want to establish a consensus here.

For the record, these five articles [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] are those sources considered to "demonstrate that this person has been the subject of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources". Each is a secondary source from established news publications where Kulinski is the main subject of the article. These sources are just the primary indicators of WP:SIGCOV, however, and sit on top of the existing mountain of sources wherein Kulinski is quoted, or interviewed extensively, such as his appearances on Fox News, The Hill's Rising, and the Joe Rogan podcast, to name a few.

Based on a reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia's WP:GNG guidelines, this degree of coverage is, in my opinion, clearly sufficient to establish notability.

Are there any disagreements or concerns with this reasoning? Personally I think this whole process suffers the messy haze that several AfDs and Draft Submisions have resulted in. For some perspective, I recently worked on creating Emily VanDerWerff, a figure with a comparably lower degree of coverage than Kulinski, and her inclusion into Wikipedia is not questioned.

ƒin (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Fin 22. Thanks for your work on the article and your interest in re-submitting it.
I started writing a long rant about our AFD process, but I'll shorten it to this: If an editor decides they don't like a borderline article, they can just nominate it for deletion over and over again until they get a deletionist closing admin and it gets deleted. That is what happened with this article. On our 4th AFD, we polled only extended confirmed users, the tally was 12 keep, 7 delete, and it still got deleted. Our notability criteria are so complicated that for borderline cases, a deletionist can latch on to any of a number of things to justify their decision.
The deletionist movement is powerful. We even had an ArbCom member vote that this draft should be deleted.
As to the quality of our current sources...
  • Jacobin - In anticipation of us re-submitting this, I got a discussion going at WP:RSN about Jacobin. It sounds like most editors would consider it "reliable but requires attribution". [1][2]
  • Inquisitr - The WP:RSN archive does not speak highly of this source. They consider it a "news aggregator" with no staff writers and all contributors.[3] I don't know if it explicitly states this in policy, but contributor article writers appear to be frowned upon by Wikipedians.
  • Good.is - This source was briefly discussed here. There was not a clear consensus. Somebody mentions that Eric Pfeiffer is a contributor.
I think that Santa Clarita Gazette article is a good source and should be included in our list of top sources.[4]
In conclusion, I think that Kyle's notability remains borderline. Deletionists have many things that they can nitpick. If we want to guarantee that this passes, we should consider waiting for additional sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Fin 22, unfortunately this draft and talk has been forked. Would you mind adding the new sources to User_talk:Trackinfo/Kyle Kulinski#Evaluating notability. Read WP:THREE. Review and approval requires only two GNG=passing sources, and listing more than three is counter-productive. My quick review of your sources is a definite maybe. The weaknesses of sources so far has been a lack of qualitative commentary about Kyle, eg adjectives applied to him. Choose the best two or three, or at least clearly identify the best two or three. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Fin 22, I think a good next step would be to post your original 5 links plus the Santa Clarita Gazette link at WP:RSN, and specifically ask them if these would be enough to prove notability in an AFD.
  • I suspect that the Jacobin source is good (RS, SIGCOV)
  • I suspect that the Santa Clarita Gazette source might be good (but it has its problems... defunct, no Wikipedia article, opinion section)
  • I suspect that Inquisitr and Good.is are not reliable for the reasons I mentioned above.
But it'd be good to get clarification. Also, the second we get another source as reliable as Jacobin and that is WP:SIGCOV of Kyle, I think we can move forward. All we need is 2 RS with SIGCOV to pass, I think. But imo both sources have to be strong. Please post the RSN link here if you end up doing that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae and SmokeyJoe: Having started as merely skeptical, I'm becoming less & less enthusiastic about the Santa Clarita Gazette & Free Classifieds source. For the reasons mentioned above - defunct, non-notable, opinion - but also because it's a very local source (claimed: 1,000 subscribers; <10,000 print run). I'm not seeing that there's evidence of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - Ryk72 talk 09:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft mini peer review

I think this draft (and the article in question) is ready to be passed to the main namespace. And I am extremely surprised it hasn't already. Kyle Kulinski easily passes WP:GNG and only hasn't made it past the draft namespace because of weird deletionists/perfectionists. Instead of submitting it however, I am going to ask everyone interested in the article to make suggestions on how to fix it (we will follow those suggestions) and also replace all the sources linked to Kulinski's YouTube channel. I do not wish to see it be deleted, so I will ask everyone like how Salimfadhley said we should. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

KingSkyLord, I installed a script that compares sources in an article to WP:RSN. Here's the sources that came up as problematic.
  • YouTube
  • Daily Express
  • Twitter
  • BlogSpot
  • Medium
  • 2 opinion pieces (Santa Clarita Gazette, Vanderbilt Hustler)
Should we consider trimming these parts of the article? It probably doesn't matter for AFD (which will examine our 2 best sources for RS and SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG). But it is probably good to bring this article into compliance with Wikipedia policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like Inquisitr was recently found to be unreliable, too. [5] –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:ENTERTAINER

Does anybody have reliable sources that report on Kyle's high YouTube views/subscribers, or generally speak about him having a "large fan base" or "cult following"? If we could find an RS or two that say this, he might qualify for inclusion under WP:ENTERTAINER #2. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • New York Magazine is listed as a reliable source. The magazine article clearly states that Kulinski is a co-founder of the Justice Democrats and also has a quote from him. There are no subscriber stats, however there is significant coverage of him here. [6] He also gets a mention in New Republic, which is also a reliable source, here. [7] The Social Blade may be considered a reliable for stats here [8], but is not listed in WP:RSP. Hope this helps. NoMagicSpellstalk 11:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    NoMagicSpells, thanks for the links. I think for WP:ENTERTAINER #2 to apply, a reliable secondary source has to have a sentence or two about a big fan base/cult following. The emphasis of the sentence has to be that "X person has an unusually big/signfiicant/special fan base". This is the impression I got from asking on the WP:BIO talk page the other day. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The definition of “entertainer” is quite narrow and Wikipedia has yet to catch up on social media personalities. Another route for this article to be validated would be perhaps as a “Creative Professional”? I think this would be a better fit. You could put forward that Kulinski is a filmmaker (he films and edits his own work) with a creative body of work (number of uploads). Let me know your views, as I don’t know the full history of previous AFDs. Also, I don’t know if the “Creative Professional” definition has been considered before. (Please note: I’m an occasional editor so may not respond to your pings quickly)--NoMagicSpellstalk 15:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
NoMagicSpells, good idea. I'll make a new section. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:YTN

Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability is an essay, not a policy or guideline. But it states WP:N says that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if ... it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline" one of which is WP:ENT. However, in practice, editors involved in deletion debates consider that a YouTuber needs to meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT.

Do we believe this information to be accurate? If so, it could mean that we should stop spending time on looking for WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE stuff, and we are stuck waiting for GNG to be met. That is, waiting for SIGCOV in a 2nd RS. (The 1st SIGCOV in RS being the Jacobin article.) –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  • My reading of the Wikipedia community decision making, which isn't universally shared, bu in which I have a lot of confidence, is this:
The subject-specific sub-notability guidelines (SNGs), like WP:ENT, are predictors of whether these sorts of topics will meet the WP:GNG;
The GNG is a very good predictor of whether the article will be kept or deleted at AfD.
AfD is where the real decision is made, and at AfD they are not necessarily bound by the letter of any guideline, but when push comes to shove, GNG arguments get a lot more weight than SNG arguments.
In this case, as the article Kyle Kulinski has already been deleted at AfD, the presumptions will be against it. Advice on coming back from there is WP:THREE. The GNG swings on 2 sources, please don't provide 100 almost good enough sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Great analysis. Thanks for sharing your wiki-wisdom. Sounds like we should stop focusing on SNG, and wait until we have 2 or 3 GNG RS SIGCOV sources. Not ideal, but it is what it is. I think he'll meet GNG eventually... just needs another newspaper, magazine, or book mention with SIGCOV. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I have already assessed this as passing. Only one more is needed. This is a very rare case of me finding a topic with one GNG-meeting source. Where there is one, there are usually many more. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:CREATIVE

Do we have any reliable sources that would help Kyle qualify under WP:CREATIVE? Any one of the following (backed up by strong sources): Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. 3) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4) The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Here’s an article from the conservative non-profit Capital Research Center who have done a profile of Kulinski on their “Influence Watch” website. It identifies Kulinski as a content creator with a notable/sizable social media presence. Editors need to weigh in on why they think this article is not a reliable source. Kulinski sits on the left of US politics. Therefore, there is no gain for this organisation to publish this information for Kulinski’s benefit. WP:IS guidance doesn’t appear to consider this information unreliable. The work doesn’t appear to be user-generated and the site appears to make an effort to be independent rather than partisan. Other editors may have a different view. See article here [9]--NoMagicSpellstalk 17:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Independence?
Author = Who wrote this? When was it written. Please tell me it is not user-sourced.
Publisher = Influence Watch Capital Research Center https://www.influencewatch.org/ Does Kyle have connection of Influence Watch or the Capital Research Center? I'm not seeing a reason to disqualify.
This is a comprehensive article about Kyle.
I'm leaning yes, but can anyone help me with who authored this article? https://www.influencewatch.org/about-us/ would appear to imply "The InfluenceWatch team" are the authors, but I would like names of main authors and dates of its writing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Sadly, WP:RSN does not speak highly of this source. [10]. However, it ranks high on Media Bias Fact Check. [11] –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see that as a critical fail, but am quite positive about this aspect. There is an issue with "reliable" versus "reputable", where for Wikipedia-notability, reputability in the publication's opinions is more important than reliability of the facts contained. The GNG is looking for secondary source coverage, which means opinions about the facts, not the facts themselves. Looking through the facts in the the article, none of them come across as implausible or surprising, and this article is heavy with referencing, so "reliability" is not really its vulnerability. My one critical fear is that the article was shadow-authored by Kyle, or his mother, or that he paid a writer. To preempt that attack, I'd like to have a name or some names of the actual authors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The Media Bias Fact Check on Influence Watch is what I would call "perfect". Their facts are good but the are not "mostly factual", which is what we want here because it is independent authors' opinions that establish notability. Was the author independent of Kyle? Who was the author? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we’re mixing up InfluenceWatch’s agenda, which is clearly conservative, to why it considers Kulinski as “notable” enough to create a profile. It would be quite ironic that a left wing commentator would author their profile for a right leaning think-tank.

Do we need an author for this source? Please point me to the guidance that says a source needs to declare who the author of a profile should be. This is not a news artiIcle. We know who the publisher is and their bias.

Regarding independence I said it “appears to make an effort to be independent” not that it was independent. The InfluenceWatch statement says:

“Capital Research Center conceived of this project after identifying a need for more fact-based, accurate descriptions of all of the various influencers of public policy issues. Many so-called “watchdog” groups are instead opponents...”

“InfluenceWatch strives to be comprehensive, and profiles will be frequently updated and written in a manner that’s accurate and measured...”

Whether you agree with these statements is a different matter (and I don’t wish to digress discussing them). The site is quite transparent with its own sources and provides citations.

I note that editors in the RSNB were unable to provide citations to to back up their own remarks. Regardless of what you think about InfluenceWatch, is the profile enough evidence to show Kulinski’s notability? --NoMagicSpellstalk 06:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I am not concerned about their agenda, just whether the writing of the article was independent of the subject. An anonymous volunteer author is a problem. What is RSNB? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
www.influencewatch.org covers a lot of people who would fail Wikipedia-notability. It also entices reader submissions, and all their biographies appear to be anonymously written. And a good number of them would be called "promotional" on Wikipedia. Kyle's is well written, I strongly suspect a paid writer.
https://www.influencewatch.org/person/kyle-kulinski/ has 55 references. The next best thing would be to see if there are good new references in there. The list is highly repetitive, and includes non-reliable sources like YouTube, and the frequent "access date" of March 9, 2020, suggests newer references won't be in the list. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Analysis of the 55 references from https://www.influencewatch.org/person/kyle-kulinski/ has 55 references
Does the source count as one of the two minimum WP:GNG-meeting sources? (NB. this is not the same as being a good source for content)
1. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/03/kyle-kulinski-bernie-bros-secular-talk-joe-rogan-youtube Carefully analysed to be a "no"
2. YouTube. Not a reliable source for the WP:GNG. No.
3. https://www.patreon.com/seculartalk His website, not independent. No
4. https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/seculartalk Data. Not a secondary source, no commentary. No.
5. https://reclaimthenet.org/cnn-twitch-youtube-copyright-claims-presidential-debates/ The content is not about Kyle, No.
6. https://www.mic.com/articles/166390/cenk-ugyur-bernie-sanders-staffers-team-up-to-take-over-the-democratic-party#.aHeelI2cI Kyle is mentioned and quoted, not covered. No.
7. https://www.futureoftheparty.com/ Does not mention Kulinski. No.
8. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/04/the-insurgents-behind-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-224542 Does not mention Kulinski. No.
9. https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/04/ocasio-cortez-justice-democrats/ Kyle is mentioned, and quoted; it is not about Kyle. No
10. https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/04/ocasio-cortez-justice-democrats/ Identical to Ref 9
11. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7677995/bio IMDB is a user contributed site and so cannot be used for the GNG. No.
12-17. Same as Ref 1.
18. YouTube. like Ref 2.
19. Same as Ref 1.
20. YouTube, No.
21-26. Same as Ref 1.
27. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/24/21080234/bernie-sanders-joe-rogan-experience-endorsement-controversy Does not mention Kyle. No.
28. Same as Ref 4.
29. Same as Ref 3.
30. Same as Ref 5.
31-33. Twitter. Not a reliable source. No.
34-36. Same as Ref 1.
37-38. Twitter. No.
39. YouTube, No
40. Same as Ref 1.
41. YouTube, No.
42-46. Same as Ref 1.
47. Same as Ref 6.
48. Same as Ref 9.
49. Same as Ref 7
50. https://justicedemocrats.com/about/ Not independent of Kyle, not about Kyle. No.
51. Same as Ref 8
52. https://www.justicedemocrats.com/issues/ Not independent, broken link. No.
53. Same as Ref 8.
54. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/us/politics/justice-democrats-ocasio-cortez.html Does not mention Kyle. No
55. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/henry-cuellar-jessica-cisneros-texas/ Does not mention Kyle. No
That was disappointing. No notability-attesting references. A lot of reference repetition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe RSNB = Reliable Souces Noticeboard.
You say:
3. https://www.patreon.com/seculartalk His website, not independent. No
4. https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/seculartalk Data. Not a secondary source, no commentary. No. Please clarify how you came to this conclusion based on what was written in the profile? We’re also trying to assess if the article is evidence of Kulinski’s notability. --NoMagicSpellstalk 18:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
#3 is WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:PRIMARY, so cannot be used to satisfy notability. I'll let SmokeyJoe respond to #4. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I’m happy to wait for the response. In the meantime, please consider further sources below.--NoMagicSpellstalk 17:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
#4 is prose-free. Secondary source comment, comment on the topic, has to be in prose, it has to be the source's author opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ll add a few more reliable source links for editors to consider regarding Kulinski’s notability as a creative/entertainer:

SLATE

Kulinski mentioned as a “leftist media personality” here:

https://slate.com/technology/2020/09/peace-data-russia-disinformation-facebook.html

RECLAIM THE NET

Why was this overlooked? It may not be about him but it identifies him as a “popular YouTuber” and content creator who received a copyright strike from CNN.

Kulinski is mentioned as a creative here:

https://reclaimthenet.org/cnn-twitch-youtube-copyright-claims-presidential-debates/

CNN

Another editor mentioned they had added this CNN article reference, but I can’t find this in the draft. Appears that an administrator removed it when a previous submission was rejected.

Kulinski is mentioned as a “prominent liberal and YouTube host”.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/15/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-debate-2020/index.html

MASHABLE

Why was this overlooked? I can’t find this ref in any version of the draft. He is noted as a “YouTube creator” here:

https://mashable.com/article/youtube-coronavirus-content-moderation/?europe=true

“Kulinski’s Secular Talk, with more than 800,000 subscribers, is one of the most popular political commentary channels on the platform.”

Wouldn’t this sentence from the Mashable article above have pushed Kulinski’s notability over the “borderline GNG”? —NoMagicSpellstalk 17:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

NoMagicSpells, good links, thanks for finding. Unfortunately these will not work for GNG, because GNG requires significant coverage (more than passing mentions). However, these may qualify under SNG's (WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE). I look forward to SmokeyJoe's opinion if he has the time. Are Slate, CNN, and Mashable passing mentions of Kulinski as "one of the most popular political commentators", "prominent liberal and YouTube host", and "leftist media personality" enough to meet WP:ENTERTAINER#2? Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Or do we need SIGCOV for that as well? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
SLATE. https://slate.com/technology/2020/09/peace-data-russia-disinformation-facebook.html No. "popular independent, leftist media personalities like Kyle Kulinski" That's it. This is a mere mention, not coverage.
RECLAIM The NET https://reclaimthenet.org/cnn-twitch-youtube-copyright-claims-presidential-debates/ Weak maybe. The following is a comment on Kyle: "Another popular YouTuber who was hit with a CNN copyright claim is Kyle Kulinski. Kulinski hosts a news and politics show and says that CNN has claimed the ad revenue on most of his videos discussing the debates. These videos have generated hundreds of thousands of views which likely equates to hundreds of dollars in ad revenue that has been claimed by CNN." Is that enough to meet the GNG's requirement ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, .... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Maybe. I expect more at AfD would say that these words do not amount to significant coverage.
CNN https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/15/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-debate-2020/index.html No. Not about Kyle. I can't find any comment on Kyle.
MASSHABLE https://mashable.com/article/youtube-coronavirus-content-moderation/?europe=true No. Not independent of the subject. The subject is providing the article content. The content is not about Kyle.
That's three definite "no"s. It has taken me more time to read them than I think it should have taken you to read WP:THREE and the WP:GNG. It is very hard to get excited about RECLAIM when you list it alongside SLATE CNN and MASHABLE. At AfD, I would not agree to RECLAIM being a GNG-meeting source, but maybe some would? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I much appreciate editors taking time to read the links and providing their views.
SmokeyJoe Please clarify one other point: You say the following about the MASHABLE article:
Not independent of the subject. The subject is providing the article content.
The reporter was Matt Binder not Kyle Kulinski. Am I missing something here in understanding your comment? Thank you again, we’re in deference to your greater knowledge in these matters. — NoMagicSpellstalk 05:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi NoMagicSpells. When I search the article for “Kyle” or “Kulinski”, I don’t find comment about Kyle, instead I find comment by Kyle. What’s needed some someone independent commenting on Kyle. Look for adjectives applied to Kyle. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe I’ll respectfully disagree with your analysis on this one. Thanks. — NoMagicSpellstalk 17:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I can try explaining better, if you want to understand what it means for a source to meet the WP:GNG criteria. This MASHABLE source does not even remotely come close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It’s not about whether the article qualifies for WP:GNG. I just don’t agree with your analysis. Thanks. --NoMagicSpellstalk 05:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the Influence Watch article independent?

Is https://www.influencewatch.org/person/kyle-kulinski/ independent of Kyle Kulinski? I think it must be presumed not. I think it is either user-generated (it is anonymously authored), or it was written by an agent of Kyle. I wrote to Influence Watch asking about the authorship of the article, but received no response. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

YouTube links

Okay, I have removed the links to his YouTube videos. I will explain all of them:

  • He already explains he is agnostic-atheist in his YouTube bio, which is linked in the #External links.
  • In the paragraph explaining that he supported Bernie and then Jill Stein in the 2016 election, there is already an article explaining why he did so. No need to link a YouTube video.
  • The stuff explaining his heritage/ethnicities can be tagged with "Better sources needed" tag.
  • The link to his YouTube channel in #The Kyle Kulinski Show is unnecessary. There's already a link to his channel in #External links.

And with that, I've just covered the whole "linking to his YouTube channel" problem. This article is easily be a stub or start, but the draft reviewers won't even let us pass it unless it reaches around C-Class or B-Class. This is just ridiculous. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  • The pathway I recommend to getting is passed is to stubify the draft down to the content supplied by the 2-3 GNG sources, only, when those 2-3 sources are chosen. After it is judged to pass the GNG, then you can add material from non-GNG meeting sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe: Stubify? Haha. This article is already at Start-class. We can publish it as is and just add cleanup tags wherever necessary. Hell, we can even add a Stub tag at the bottom of the page. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Stub is less than Start. There are currently 49 references, and that is ridiculous, if the question is whether it overcomes the AfD decision to delete. 2-3 good references are all that are needed, and more obfuscate, they do not help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
        • That is still ridiculous and such an insanely high bar for passing this draft. I would say about 40 of the references are GNG. It should be passed as is. Two or three bad sources don't break GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
          • @KingSkyLord I concur with your views. I think the most recent MFD was a Snow Keep. Therefore, those editors have more or less acknowledged Kulinski’s notability. The only thing holding this back from being put into the mainspace are those who have strayed into WP:BLUESKY territory. --NoMagicSpellstalk 20:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
            • Probably best not to put words into the mouths of others. It can be seen as misrepresentative. SmokeyJoe makes a cogent point - editors attempting to assess notability will be distracted by passing mentions and sources which are not independent of the article subject. - Ryk72 talk 22:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
”...distracted by passing mentions and sources which are not independent of the article subject” This remark makes no sense. Is it even a sentence? --NoMagicSpellstalk 01:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There are so many low quality references in the draft that when new reviewers come to read it, when they do spot checks of the content and supporting references, they’ll get a very negative impression. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
              • Thanks Ryk72. I think this is clearly in the interest of getting this fairly assessed. The policy-based problem is in WP:PSTS. This draft is massively unbalanced in terms of primary sources vs secondary sources. Primary sources source facts, secondary sources source opinion/analysis/comment. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
”Primary sources source facts, secondary sources source opinion/analysis/comment. Gibberish again! --NoMagicSpellstalk 01:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Read primary source, secondary source, and WP:PSTS. If you can’t understand what is written there, you will not be able to understand why this was deleted, and will have no hope of making a successful re-creation request. Note that the title is created-protected. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
          • KingSkyLord, if you think 40 of the references pass the GNG, there is probably no point talking to you, but if you are serious, tell me your best three. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
“...there is probably no point talking to you” That’s a very good suggestion. Nobody should talk to SmokeyJoe. --NoMagicSpellstalk 02:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Guys, Wikipedia's notability policy is extremely complicated. There is GNG and like 12 SNG's. GNG looks simple, but once you start getting involved in AFD's, you discover that it is interpreted very strictly, and any little problem can disqualify a source. At this point I've concluded that it is imperative to find and listen to experts on notability policy. Those experts are basically admins and new page patrollers, such as SmokeyJoe. We can make our own arguments, but at the end of the day if our arguments are out of alignment with the norms of AFD, they will simply be ignored by the closer. Ignoring SmokeyJoe would be like a defendant in court ignoring the advice of their lawyer. When law or policy is complicated, experts must be listened to. I for one am very appreciative that SmokeyJoe has taken quite a bit of time to deeply analyze our sources and provide expert and realistic advice. The points he's brought up are likely to be exactly what will be brought up if this article goes back to AFD or AFC. Have a look at this page to get an idea of the science behind evaluating GNG sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This topic is on the edge of being Wikipedia-notable. Tossing the worst mere-mention sources will definitely help. My judgement is that another independent reliable source commenting on Kyle is needed, but there is a chance that a stubified version could pass.
Another question: Who are some comparable YouTube political commentators? Also, is there any critical commentary of Kyle and his work, even if not reliably published? It would probably help a lot. The tone of the coverage here is unchallengingly positive, which is definitely a problem, subjectively. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe needs to speak in plain english and not WP:Wikilawyering language. I disagree with the deeply analyzing part. This article won’t get a reliable source with significant coverage in the near future. You need to go down the SNG route. Therefore you need to cut down the number of references to the ones that will likely pass. David Pakman is a good example of a similar commentator. --NoMagicSpellstalk 03:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I can make more effort with the plain English. The WikiJargon feels appropriate because WikiJargon is what is going to be thrown at the request for unprotection, which is required to move it back to mainspace. I predict zero luck with the SNG approach. I think more luck will be had with a small newspaper editorial, eg from Bernie or Biden’s home town, or a social media academic publication. Any evidence that anybody, excluding his subscribers or content re-users, care. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
eg https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1135&context=grad_rev —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Wow, this source is an excellent find. It is definitely SIGCOV. Does it pass SELFPUBLISH? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
It is an academic publication. The publication is: "The Graduate Review", Vol. V, 2019-2020. Recommended Citation: (2020) The Graduate Review, Vol. V, 2019-2020. The Graduate Review, 5. Available at: https://vc.bridgew.edu/grad_rev/vol5/iss1/1
The publisher is Bridgewater State University
The manuscript title is: "Gramsci in the Digital Age: YouTubers as New Organic Intellectuals"
Author: Keith Lydon.
Summary information see: https://vc.bridgew.edu/grad_rev/vol5/iss1/8/
Excepts include:
"Another of the new organic intellectuals is Kyle Kulinski, founder and host of YouTube’s “Secular Talk.” Kulinski created “Secular Talk” in 2008 while attending Iona College, where he majored in political science and minored in psychology."
"In advocating against self-marginalization, Kulinski performs a core function of the organic intellectual, forging alliances between disparate factions of the working class to establish one ideologically cohesive unit, something Gramsci called a “historic bloc” (Parker 228)". This is definitely secondary source material, the author Keith Lydon's opinion, not repetition of facts.
Cenk Uygur, Kyle Kulinski and the other new organic intellectuals of YouTube have the attention of hundreds of thousands of people every time they upload a video. For years, they have been using YouTube .... They were persistent enough to recognize the amazing potential of the digital media platform to allow them to influence the worldview of a new generation ..."
I count this as a GNG-meeting source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Does this count as your endorsement to take this back to mainspace? Trackinfo (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I think so. To do: De-WP:Reference bomb this draft, stubify it with respect to the non-independent sources, and remove the mere mentions; add content based on the two GNG-meeting sources, in the lede, so these two sources appear prominently as refs #1-2. Then, accept the draft, requests the protecting admin to de-protect or use WP:RfPU or take to to WP:DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Cuts for cleaning

New show 2021

In cutting low quality material, I cut

On January 1, 2021, Kulinski with Krystal Ball of Rising with the Hill's Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti from The Hill launched a new podcast called Krystal Kyle and Friends. The first episode featured Marianne Williamson, a 2020 Democratic Presidential primary candidate.

Ref = https://krystalkyleandfriends.substack.com/p/happy2021

This is promotion, it can find its way back in with more care, independent sourcing is required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

the The New York Times published an article about Uygur that was factually incorrect

The following is a nice story, but it is low level incidental. This is not what Kyle is famous for.

In December 2019, the The New York Times published an article about Uygur that was factually incorrect and portrayed Uygur in a negative light.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Medina|first1=Jennifer|date=13 December 2019|title=Bernie Sanders Retracts Endorsement of Cenk Uygur After Criticism|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-cenk-uygur.html|accessdate=19 December 2019|website=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> Kulinski organized a campaign, encouraging people to contact The Times and ask for a correction.

<ref>{{Cite web|last=Wulfsohn|first=Joseph|date=December 16, 2019|title=Cenk Uygyr slams 'unconscionable' NY Times report suggesting he defended David Duke, calling it a 'lie'|url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/cenk-uygyr-david-duke-new-york-times-lie|website=[[Fox News]]}}</ref> The campaign was successful, and ''The New York Times'' issued a correction.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Wulfsohn|first1=Joseph|date=16 December 2019|title=New York Times issues correction after suggesting Cenk Uygur defended David Duke|url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-times-issues-correction-after-wrongfully-suggesting-cenk-uygur-defended-david-duke|accessdate=20 December 2019|website=[[Fox News]]}}</ref>

Maybe this can come back in if the article is agreed to be notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyle_Kulinski/Archive_1&oldid=1020981434"