User talk:Trackinfo/Kyle Kulinski

Sources from my WP:DRV comment

I was easily able to find mass media coverage which had apparently been overlooked, such as [1] that I have already added to the REFUNDed draft. Here are some more:

• "Kyle Kulinski, a co-founder of Justice Democrats and an influential left-wing podcast host, went further. 'If democratic elites really think they’re gonna casually override the will of the voters they have another thing coming,' he said...." Bowman, Bryan (20 February 2020). "Democratic Primary: What Happens if No One Wins a Majority of Delegates?". The Globe Post.
• "'Bloomberg literally packed the audience for cheers for himself,' said Kyle Kulinski, host of the Kyle Kulinski show...." York, Mario Koran Adam Gabbatt in New; Belam (earlier), Martin (27 February 2020). "Trump campaign sues New York Times for libel over Russia opinion piece – as it happened". The Guardian.
• "'Stunning middle finger to democracy and the democratic base,' said journalist Kyle Kulinski of the other candidates...." Higgins, Eoin (February 20, 2020). "The Most Unnerving Moment From the Nevada Democratic Debate". Truthdig.
• "This year’s Politicon (the annual non-partisan political convention which aims to bring 'Republicans, Democrats, and people of all stripes together...') culminated with a debate between Charlie Kirk, the founder and president of Turning Point USA, and Kyle Kulinski, the co-founder of Justice Democrats and host of The Kyle Kulinski Show." Haworth, Ian (November 4, 2019). "Why The 'All' In 'Medicare for All' Is Not The Be-All And End-All". Townhall.

Do we consider such quotations as an authority to be substantial coverage or merely mentions in passing? In contrast, here is a Rolling Stone article which mentions him in passing but does not quote him as an authority. In any case, these sources lead with his name, so they seem like substantial coverage:

• MacDonald, Tyler (25 January 2020). "Kyle Kulinski Defends Joe Rogan After Backlash For Bernie Sanders Endorsement". The Inquisitr.
• "Justice Democrats co-founder Kyle Kulinski criticized CNN and MSNBC on Thursday for failing to do as much investigative journalism into President Donald Trump as Fox News has been doing into former Vice President Joe Biden...." Nash, Charlie (3 October 2019). "Justice Democrats Co-Founder: Fox 'More Impactful' Than CNN, MSNBC, Which 'Just Whine' Over Tweets". Mediaite.
• MacDonald, Tyler (8 January 2020). "Donald Trump's Speech On Iran Attack Blasted By Kyle Kulinski For Being 'Full Of Lies And Insanity'". The Inquisitr.
• "Progressive activist Kyle Kulinski said Wednesday that 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is actually 'at his best' when he shows off his famous grumpy side...." Bonn, Tess (24 July 2019). "Progressive activist: Sanders 'at his best when he's an angry old man'". TheHill.
• Pfeiffer, Eric (11 July 2017). "Kyle Kulinski Of The Young Turks Says Democrats Need To Change Before They Can Defeat Trump". GOOD.

EllenCT (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:ENTERTAINER

"[Regarding] WP:ENTERTAINER, 'Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.' He has 667,618,862 YouTube views. His appearance on Joe Rogan (Oct 2019) has 2.2 million views. The subject meets our general notability requirements and meets WP:ENTERTAINER. We do not dismiss such notable subjects...." Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• I endorse that view. EllenCT (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Seconded Viktorpp (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone claim that Kulinski does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER? If so, why? EllenCT (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the subject is notable. --EllenCT (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Additional source found at deletion review

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3-of-the-silliest-tweets-opposing-the-killing-of-qassim-soleimani EllenCT (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What content would this source support? It says nothing about Kulinski other than he once tweeted something. - Ryk72 ^talk 20:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you consider it a passing mention or a quotation as of an authority? EllenCT (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

In so far as this is not a false dichotomy: given the way in which the tweet is described in this opinion piece ("idiotic", "winning the just-plain-ignorant stakes"); it is very difficult to see it as a quotation as of an authority. Again, what content would this source support? I genuinely can't see that there's much meat in the source - Kulinski tweeted something; Rogan (in the WE) thought it was ignorant - what more is there? And I don't mean to single out this source. I genuinely can't see that there's much in most of the sources listed in the sections above. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Notability Threshold Questions

Out of curiosity, if the article included references to articles from publications of this nature (hypothetically), where the subject is the primary or secondary focus, would the subject then be considered notable? Vox, Bloomberg, Forbes, NYT, Washington Post, Wired, Fox, MSNBC, Mother Jones, various books. (Would any of these sources be considered irrelevant or biased?) Presently, is the subject close to being notable, or very far from being notable?

Here are some articles where he is mentioned:

Falseinfinity (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Submitted for publication

There has been a lot of good faith discussion about the notability and sourcing of this article. After the March 6, 2020 edits, the article meets both criteria, with profile piece in Jacobin magazine, reference as a prominent liberal by CNN and as an internet idol by The Washington Post. Sourcing now includes CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Fox News, IMDB, Rolling Stone, Yahoo!, The Nation, Jacobin and Vice, as well as multiple published books from notable publishers - all of which are considered reliable sources. Further, the coverage is over a long period of time and broad in context. Viktorpp (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The primary problem I’m seeing is that nearly all of them are passing mentions. Some are just name drops due to his association with other people, and don’t treat the subject at all. While notability is established by sustained in-depth coverage, I’ll note that it’s an inherent quality, and not solely attached to sourcing. However, I’m still not sure he quite meets the threshold for notability on Wikipedia, at this particular time. Unfortunately, this whole process has been tainted by the subject calling on his followers to disrupt Wikipedia. Even without that though, I’m not sure the community would be able to extend latitude, as there really are almost solely mentions of his name in connection to the Justice Democrats, and little else. I think this is a matter of “too soon”; I don’t doubt he’ll be notable in the future, but given the more specific guidelines on public figures, it’s difficult to make the argument he meets the criteria, as of yet. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I appreciate the perspective. There are a couple of points I'd like to posit: 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. 2. 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". In view of these, I hope you would reconsider. Viktorpp (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

I would further remind everyone that the WP:ENT includes "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. Viktorpp (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:ENT includes "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 notale Joe Rogan Experience. Further, he has appeared multiple times as primary guest on notable Rising (news show) multiple times.Viktorpp (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:ENT includes "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Prolific: Secular Talk has had 1500+ episodes Viktorpp (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Evaluating notability

I started an examination of the references for notability, got about halfway through but have to stop for now so pasting the table here in case anyone else wants to finish it off. Schazjmd (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Schazjmd's wikitable

Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes YouTube channel Y N N N see above I can not find any WP:ENTERTAINER with over 1,000 views per hour who we do not consider notable, let alone 10,000. No dissent above after over a week. EllenCT (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Politicon speaker profile N N N N N Self-published source CNN article N Y Y Y N Quoted tweet from K. book, "Why You Should Be a Socialist" N Y Y Y N K.'s name included in long list of names Guardian article N Y Y Y N Brief quote from K. Jacobin magazine profile Y ? see below Y Y ? see below; Jimbo Wales thinks so I'm not familiar with Jacobin, giving benefit of the doubt on reliability. I have judged this non-independent, close, but no.[2] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Vice article N Y Y Y N Brief mention in article about someone else book, "Alternative Media Meets Mainstream Politics: Activist Nation Rising" N Y Y Y N No mention of K., only Justice Democrats The significance of this source and below are that Kulinski is named as one of the creators of Justice Democrats and that organization has produced successful political results.Trackinfo (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC) About the Justice Democrats N N ? N N No mention of K. Rolling Stone article N Y Y Y N Brief mention Real Clear Politics article N Y Y Y N Brief mention Fox article N Y Y Y N Tweet quote IMDb Y N N N N Unreliable source book, "Digital Civil War" ? Y Y Y N Book not searchable online, but as it only is cited in article to support "is a host", I doubt significant coverage book, "Alternative Media Meets Mainstream Politics: Activist Nation Rising" N Y Y Y N Brief mention Vice article N Y Y Y N Brief mention book, "The Liberal Media Industrial Complex" N Y Y Y N Brief mention Fox article N Y Y Y N Quote from K. Santa Clarita Gazette article Y Y Y Y Y Per this analysis --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Many clips on The Hill TV ? varies by clip Y Y Y Probably See below placeholder {{aye}} {{nay}} {{hmmm}} ... ... ... placeholder {{aye}} {{nay}} {{hmmm}} ... ... ... Total qualifying sources 1 or 2+ There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

• For transparency, here is our article on Jacobin (magazine). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed quite a few primary references and almost all of the YouTube/self-published references. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Schazjmd, do you mind if we use this table as a running summary of sources as they are suggested and evaluated? Or should we copy the table? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, feel free to do with it whatever you want. Schazjmd (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to convert the table into a sortable table. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sortable table,source analysis for the WP:GNG

"wikitable sortable"

Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Score: 2=Pass 1=Not unagreed 0=Fail Notes YouTube channel Y N N N 0 see above I can not find any WP:ENTERTAINER with over 1,000 views per hour who we do not consider notable, let alone 10,000. No dissent above after over a week. EllenCT (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Politicon speaker profile N N N N 0 N Self-published source CNN article N Y Y Y 0 N Quoted tweet from K. book, "Why You Should Be a Socialist" N Y Y Y 0 N K.'s name included in long list of names Guardian article N Y Y Y 0 N Brief quote from K. Jacobin magazine profile Y ? see below Y Y 1 ? see below; Jimbo Wales thinks so I'm not familiar with Jacobin, giving benefit of the doubt on reliability. I have judged this non-independent, close, but no.[3] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Vice article N Y Y Y 0 N Brief mention in article about someone else book, "Alternative Media Meets Mainstream Politics: Activist Nation Rising" N Y Y Y 0 N No mention of K., only Justice Democrats The significance of this source and below are that Kulinski is named as one of the creators of Justice Democrats and that organization has produced successful political results.Trackinfo (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC) About the Justice Democrats N N ? N 0 N No mention of K. Rolling Stone article N Y Y Y 0 N Brief mention Real Clear Politics article N Y Y Y 0 N Brief mention Fox article N Y Y Y 0 N Tweet quote IMDb Y N N N 0 N Unreliable source book, "Digital Civil War" ? Y Y Y 0 N Book not searchable online, but as it only is cited in article to support "is a host", I doubt significant coverage book, "Alternative Media Meets Mainstream Politics: Activist Nation Rising" N Y Y Y 0 N Brief mention Vice article N Y Y Y 0 N Brief mention book, "The Liberal Media Industrial Complex" N Y Y Y 0 N Brief mention Fox article N Y Y Y 0 N Quote from K. Santa Clarita Gazette article Y Y Y Y 1 Y Per this analysis --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Many clips on The Hill TV ? varies by clip Y Y Y 0 Probably See below twoInquisitr article Y Y Y Y 2 Y I haven't seen these ones discussed previously but they seem to pass all the tests. placeholder {{aye}} {{nay}} {{hmmm}} ... ... ... Total qualifying sources . . . 1 or 2+ There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Draft protected from editing; Jacobin profile independence

User:Scottywong has protected the draft for three months. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kyle Kulinski. Sensible, I think.

The above section #Evaluating notability looks good for screening possible GNG-meeting, notability-attesting sources. Until there are at least two, I do not think it is sensible to write content, as the content will be founded on an unsuitable foundation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Would you help me understand the definition of "independent" you used at [4]?

“ .... “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. ”

Are you saying a biographical profile which quotes from the subject is not independent? Perhaps you can refer to a specific definition you're applying. Jimbo Wales has said:

“ 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) ”

@SmokeyJoe: WP:GNG says the criterion is, "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." Are you suggesting that Kulinski is affiliated with Jacobin? EllenCT (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No.

There are many ways to fail independent. To be independent it has to be independent in every way. In this case, the problem is that all of the secondary source content comes straight from the subject. It’s not that quotes of the subject invalidate, it’s that all content about the subject is quotes or unchallenged subject opinion. The author of the article, Connor Kilpatrick, is not third party, but second party at best, and barely that. The article is a prosified interview. The author is standing next to the subject, the author is too close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Quotes from the subject are not independent of the subject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: do you mean to claim that any source discussing a subject with direct quotes from that subject is not independent? EllenCT (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

No. I mean you have to be able to pull out a paragraph, or two, in which the author is talking about the subject, and is not prosifying the subject's quotes. In other words, scrub the paragraphs where the subject's quotes are the feature of the paragraph, and see what is left. In this case, when the quotes are scrubbed, there is no significant comment on the subject. Ahmed's quotes are independent, but they are not significant. If the article author were actively critiquing the subject quotes, then that would pass. This is a tough test of independence that I only do if the topic has already been deleted for not being notable; it takes two very good GNG-meeting source to overcome a recent AfD decision to delete. I claim that https://santaclaritafree.com/gazette/opinion/the-passion-of-kyle-kulinski is one, and where there is one it is worth looking and waiting for another. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: do you or do you not claim that Kulinski is affiliated with Jacobin? If not, which specific definition of the word "independent" are you using to claim non-independence? EllenCT (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Kulinski does not appear affiliated with Jacobin. The transcript or faithful copy of an interview with the subject is not independent of the subject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There are so many new sources everyday. Comments by Kyle Kulinski won’t do. What we need is someone talking about Kyle Kulinski, either someone notable, or it being published in a reliable source. Not Kyle Kulinski talking about Kyle Kulinski. Not Kyle Kulinski talking about someone else. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

{The article meets Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources. The point of the rule is to exclude using first party sources, but they wouldn't meet readability anyway. It's not designed to exclude publishers because they have an ideological bias. In fact it doesn't necessarily exclude sources writing about related companies. (Media groups are often owned by transnational corporations with interests in different types of business.)

I assume the Jacobin writer got a lot of his information directly from Kulinski. However that does not mean it should be treated as a primary source from the subject unless it is in direct quotes. We can rely on professional journalists to evaluate statements by a subject and determine whether they are credible enough to report as facts. Historians do that all the time. They take for example literature from the Roman Empire, none of which would pass rs, and figure out what happened.

i question though whether the sources provided are sufficient to write a balanced and informative article. I can see the arguments now. An intern writing an article about social media for a small local newspaper refers in passing to Kulinski as a conspiracy theorist/far left/whatever and we spend weeks discussing whether that should be included.

TFD (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it inevitable that this article is published?

I am just wanting to enquire as to whether the article will be published (eventually) or not, and furthermore, if that seems soon or not. Progress seems to have slowed. Also, I am not aware as to why there is so much fuss over one article, so if anyone is willing to inform me that would be appreciated. Finally, what is the most beneficial way I can contribute? What needs to be done to get the article finished? WBPchur ^{💬●✒️●💛} 09:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s not inevitable. It’s possible that KK had a flash in the pan of social media attention. You should be waiting for a new good source, and this new good source should be used to rewrite the lede. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I just reviewed the google news hits on the following: "Kyle Kulinski" -wikipedia -"Posted by Kyle Kulinski"

I didn’t find any new GNG-meeting coverage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A flash in the pan of 12 years of notability? His channel and followings continuing to grow every day? He will always be the founder of Justice Democrats. I don't see the case against him having a fully public article. Officially Mr X (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts from the first AfD creator

As the author of the first AfD and one of the original article creators, I feel that I should weigh in here. Over the past hour or so I went back and looked at the past AfD and the deletion review, as well as the tweet Kyle sent out a month or two ago. Technically speaking, I was called out implicitly since I initiated the first AfD. My rationale (some of this is personal opinion) for this was simple, and still stands today: as much as I love Kyle, as much as I'll sit back and listen to his live broadcasts through Blog Talk Radio while I'm exercising, as long as I've been listening to his show, the mainstream media will never acknowledge him the way they will with other left-of-center/progressive commentators such as Ana Kasparian, David Pakman (and their article is on shaky ground) and Cenk Uygur. Unfortunately you have people like Ben Shapiro with over 50 references from reliable sources and he's a right-wing commentator.

In fact, I would compare and contrast BS' article to Kyle's and you'll see the disparity there. He founded several right-wing websites, which are notable in themselves, while Kyle created Justice Democrats. He has also written several books and is always doing his silly speaking tours. Again, I am not saying this makes him more "important" or "accomplished" than Kyle. I personally believe, and this is opinion only, that there is more money to be made in these RW circles, and he gets money thrown at him for spewing his talking points. Meanwhile, you have Kyle cursing (which a lot of "proper reliable sources" dislike), holding "controversial" viewpoints and generally discrediting the media left and right. He also hasn't written books, hasn't gone on speaking tours, hasn't been a columnist. Because of the nature in how YouTube is structured and the abundance of channels between 100k-1M subscribers (I remember when having that many subscribers meant you were a major channel), they would rather not cover him and his channel, which is still under a million subscribers.

People outside of Wikipedia don't typically understand the rules like we do. There are so many people, when news breaks, who assume that Wikipedia "staff members" edit and publish articles as if it were World Book. That's okay though, I probably don't know much about how what these other people specialize in works either, whether they're garbage collectors, doctors or lawyers. So again, while many of us may personally see him as a notable figure, the rules of Wikipedia are specific in their criteria yet broad in how they are applied, which, while I agree with it in principle, has the unfortunate side-effect of weeding out those who do not capitulate to the mainstream media. Invading his AfD on a tweet Kyle sent out in a crusade to protect his article is a noble gesture if you believe there's a secret cabal against him, but without knowing the policies, is a fruitless goal. Hopefully one day Kyle will get his article, but as it stands I don't see how one can be reasonably made. Buffaboy ^talk 20:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As a proposal, could an article be made for his show: Secular Talk? Not sure if this idea has been raised yet. Also, I would like to mention that there are many articles on Wikipedia with far lesser sources that are up with no controversy. People seem to especially disfavour Kyle Kulinski hence so much attention being directed against his page. This is just an observation. WBPchur ^{💬●✒️●💛} 06:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think Kyle himself has a wider variety of sources. I asked over a month ago at #WP:ENTERTAINER above whether there are any objections to his apparently meeting WP:ENTERTAINER, and there weren't, but I am loathe to try to resubmit after my first two AfC submissions started being copied without adding additional content by new editors. I think the best way to proceed is an RFC on the topic of WP:ENTERTAINER. His search interest has declined since the controversy but his subscribers and view rates are increasing, so I think an RFC on WP:ENTERTAINER is the way to go forward. EllenCT (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC on WP:ENTERTAINER

At #WP:ENTERTAINER above, the question, "Does anyone claim that Kulinski does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER?" has resulted in no responses in over a month, during which time Kulinski's total YouTube views have increased by 3% or 21 million. Because of the difficult history of this draft, we should obtain clear consensus before requesting creation again. Therefore, yes or no, does Kulinski meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability critera, specifically that he as an "opinion maker," has had a significant role in his YouTube productions, has a large fan base, and has made unique and prolific contributions to political commentary entertainment? For those concerned with recent sources, please note that he continues to be covered as a headliner authority by The Hill TV. 07:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes he meets WP:ENTERTAINER, as proposer. I also believe that the recent substantial The Hill TV coverage naming him in the headline unquestionably puts him over the GNG independent sources hurdle, as The Hill is considered reliable at WP:RSP, and I agree with Jimbo Wales that the Jacobin profile met the criteria when it was published. EllenCT (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - as per reasons outlined by @EllenCT.Resnjari (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Irrelevant if he doesn’t meet the GNG. The SNGs are merely indicators of whether the topic will meet the GNG. The GNG is a very good indicator of whether the topic will be kept or deleted at AfD. This has already been deleted at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the article has been deleted at AfD, new articles on him have been published, including one which Jimmy Wales has stated reaches the GNG, one which you say counts towards it, some number of Hill TV broadcasts have cited him as a headline authority, and his shows have been watched over 21 million times. EllenCT (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't hold RfCs in user talk pages; use a more appropriate location, such as the talk page for the article concerned, or the talk page of the most relevant WikiProject. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to open a new broader RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. EllenCT (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Moved

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#RFC on Kyle Kulinski. EllenCT (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The RFC was removed seemingly for political reasons? I wouldn't claim this except it's clearly spelled out by the submitter. Having a good or bad political take is completely irrelevant in a discussion of whether a subject is notable or not. The most recent RFC as outlined seemed to be moving along smoothly, and the reason for ending it does not seem to me to be valid --Falseinfinity (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Number of Hill TV clips as an authority?

Can anyone figure out how many Hill TV stories have relied on Kylinski as an authority? Google returns over 1,600 pages mentioning him there, but that includes duplications from headline listings from recent stories and I can't figure out how to correctly eliminate duplicates. EllenCT (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• “Many clips on The Hill TV” will not be accepted as a serious claim of a source. Choose one. If the basis of the claim is the “many”, then find an independent source that mentions the “many clips”. Otherwise, it is not even a starter for a source analysis. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I selected these six naming him as an authority in their headlines for the new RFC, from July, September, November, and December 2019, and March 6, and April 10, 2020. The first five are accompanied with just a single sentence of text naming him and his show, but the most recent from two days ago says, "Kyle Kulinski, the progressive host of 'The Kyle Kulinski Show,' said .... on Hill.TV’s 'Rising' Friday."

That suggests to me that Kulinski is appearing as a full-fledged The Hill TV commentator, does it not? The clip shows him being interviewed by the anchors. EllenCT (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

These clips are not independent of Kyle, so they do not meet the GNG. He’s obviously a credible political commentator, but these clips are not proof for Wikipedia. Surely someone ahead of Wikipedia has commented on him? I found another two sources to analyse: https://politicon.com/speaker/kyle-kulinski/ https://medium.com/the-conservatarian-pragmatist/response-to-kyle-kulinski-on-dave-rubin-and-heterodox-thought-279f85abdd38 —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a conference biographical blurb and a personal blog don't meet the reliable source criterial, but The Hill TV introducing Kulinski as a commentator authority and then showing him in video seem similar to the same kind of independence that we ascribe to the biographical sketches which describe and them quote him. I'm inclined to ask WP:RSN whether they are considered significant mentions though, but so soon after opening and moving the RFC might be considered canvassing, so perhaps you could do that please? EllenCT (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yeah. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is Kyle Kulinski worth a mention at Rising (news show)? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not even going to opine on that until the RFC is closed. I don't want to be accused of anything untoward after I unwittingly led all those new IPs into insufficient-AfC-draft-submission sin. EllenCT (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Understood. After looking, I think the answer is “no”. He is not their leading consultant-guest, and the article does not list other recurring guests. If he is not worth a mention for appearing on the news show, then appearance on the news show falls we short of the Wikipedia-threshold line. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Time to submit

Three months have elapsed since Draft:Kyle Kulinski was protected, and it can now be submitted to AfC. I feel the article has greatly improved since then and definitely meets GNG. Do we have a consensus to submit it? Mottezen (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Trackinfo (talk · contribs) EllenCT (talk · contribs)

I certainly think Kulinski's article is long overdue. However, as a long time editor with a lot of battle scars; Feeling the political will, we still need an additional article ABOUT Kulinski, not simply referring to his comments or popularity. Until we solve that issue, we are likely going to be stuck in the mire of the political forces against us.

In searching for sources about Kulinski, as I do regularly, this came up, which kind of backs what I have been saying about factional agendas censoring wikipedia. Its not just me.

We cannot simply attempt to marginally beat these forces against us. We must overwhelm and crush them. Otherwise, another loss could put artificial barriers inhibiting each future effort. Trackinfo (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That Grayzone article was also essentially rewritten into a Spanish article at [5] Trackinfo (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There's something deeply underhand about why Kyle of all people is being rejected for a Wikipedia article. He seems more notable than 1000s of other people who happily sit with an personal article on this platform. He's not even a controversial figure, but he is notable and increasing in notability every day. I don't normally comment on issues like this but this particular example seems so overwhelmingly obvious to me. Officially Mr X (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

There still seems to be no new publication that talks about Kyle. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

He was quoted by Fox News twice recently. [6] [7] along with the Daily Mail [8]. RT America [9], Jacobin [10], CGTN]] [11] and the Inquisitr [12], to name a few. And each was a different quote. Trackinfo (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

“He was quoted” is not someone else saying something about him. Can you quote anyone saying anything about Kyle? I can count only one source. Someone writing about Wikipedia not covering Kyle is not comment on Kyle. Kyle talking politics is not comment on Kyle. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You have to be more than an average Joe off the street to get quoted by any of those publication, much less all in the span of about a week. The Jacobin article is a profile, with a lot more in depth information than just the mention of his omission from wikipedia, you might read it sometime. Trackinfo (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)