Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:03, 3 March 2020

Draft:Kyle Kulinski

Draft:Kyle Kulinski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

• delete pew pew pew. How many AFDs do we need? Perhaps a moratorium on this article, as I'm not sure that a few months time is sufficient enough for any substantial change after four deletion discussions. (And no, the temper tantrum on social media encouraging people to complain doesn't count.) Praxidicae (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per my reasoning in the 3RD rejection. This just failed in a AfD less than a month ago. A review of that AfD just a few days ago again confirmed by consensus that this subject is not notable. The reasons given in comments and on the talk page as to why this person is notable are the same dubious claims that were already considered and rejected by the aforementioned consensus. The standard for AfC is quite simple: Is it likely to survive an AfD? And the answer here is a clear no. Continuing to resubmit this or otherwise bypass the standards required by AfC without first clearly showing how this person has somehow become clearly notable in the past week or so will be considered disruptive and in bad faith. I've done everything I can to avoid having to waste even more time with yet another deletion discussion but that might be unavoidable if this is dubiously submitted again. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment If this goes anything like the most recent AfD then we should brace ourselves for a sludge of new users equipped with poor rationales. If that's the case, a plea of reason for whoever closes this out to ensure you're considering the valid reasoning behind a vote, not just the vote count. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete/Salt per all of the above comments. Rehashing this four different times is completely ludicrous. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep First, I still feel it was unjustly deleted at the previous AfD, after previously surviving an earlier set of attacks. With 3/4 of a million subscribers, Mr. Kulinski's article has not been his failure to achieve notability, but rather has been part of a much larger attack to quash the nature of his content and content like it. Once it was deleted, I requested it be saved to my sandbox for future improvements, as I expect Mr. Kulinski will continue to play a notable role in progressive media. Other users added to that content and moved it back to Draft status, redirecting it away from my saved version. Those other users are the ones who brought forth the attempt to refund. So at this point, to save couple of steps, I have restored the article to my sandbox to keep this content available for improvement. A better, more public way would be to keep it in draft status. The proper and just way will be to return this article to mainspace. Whether that happens now or in the future is only a matter of time and the will of politically motivated actors. Trackinfo (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep because the opposition is improperly politically motivated. Unless, for example, there is another WP:ENTERTAINER with a similarly sized YouTube following and search interest frequently summarized by the videography branch of a major national political newspaper (TheHill TV) who has been considered non-notable? I object to the use of the language of assassination to refer to deletion of a BLP, by a nominator who has thus far refused to discuss his motivations for doing so. Because the draft was nominated for speedy deletion and salting under circumstances where any reasonable editor would know or should know that the nomination would be contested, I saved its wikitext at . EllenCT (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep, but remove the AfC draft tag and add an edit notice warning against moving to Main: namespace per above. If this draft is been tendentiously resubmitted with little improvement, then the solution here is not deletion, but rather, to remove the AfC tag. ECP brand salt protection can be applied to the Main: namespace article title, to prevent it being moved to the main article space; however, salt protection of Draft: namespace should be used exceedingly sparingly, and I don't think it's necessary here. Doug Mehus T·C 00:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Keep As much as I want this to become an article, with the news media (RS) bias not covering progressive hosts but also a lack of published journalism, the article simply won't get past the notability guidelines. Perhaps in the future he will become more notable, but it's still WP:TOOSOON. Buffaboy 01:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC) I am changing my vote per the rationale below. Buffaboy 02:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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