Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (4th nomination)

This is the talk page, not the actual articles for deletion page.
Please direct your !votes to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (4th nomination) instead of the talk page.

Serial AFDs

The result of the last AFD in December was "no consensus as near as possible to DEL" after a bad case of SPA + IP comments unfamiliar with the concept of notability, claiming YT subscribers as "good enough" (not). But bimonthly semi-protected AFDs are not better, nobody bothered to fix obvious issues, e.g., a Politicon 2018 photo + profile suggest that he actually was present in some capacity, and I only added 2019. He appeared almost weekly as (quote) friend of the show (unquote) on Rising recently, so far the BLP has this only as once (credits), and the nominator apparently invented a new BEFORE cocktail based on IDONTLIKEIT for the 4th AFD, the old 2017 AFDs don't cover 2018–2020 events. –84.46.52.79 (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile a Rising "repeatedly" survived, and an unclear Politicon 2019 "appearance" is now "speaker at 4 events", i.e., Kulinski wasn't only a paying visitor or waiter. –84.46.53.165 (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact, proponent + opponent just helped to improve Justin Jackson. I erroneously dismissed the Guardian source as not counting towards THREE some days ago, i.e., it doesn't count but is no nonsense. –84.46.52.200 (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dore, Kulinski, Uygur

@Trackinfo: Thanks for info, I've fixed (pending review) two simple issues, but I'm not going to check the lost WaPo source for this or any other BLP about a guy, this would require disabling JavaScript on WayBack. JFTR, the nominator follows their principles on all sides, not only on "progressive" BLPs, e.g., The Gateway Pundit + Saagar Enjeti, and on Kim Iversen I just reset the BLP to a state I don't exactly like based on Talk:Jimmy Dore#Bellingcat sourced content- –84.46.53.84 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: WP:RS/N#The Daily Wire. –84.46.52.200 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our NOM, the exact same individual who removed The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Daily Wire and other sources from this article, says Bellingcat is a RS on Jimmy Dore and the slime was restored posted accordingly. To this day, the article reads The United Nations has confirmed that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack. based on the Bellingcat as a source, even though I provided the source [1] directly from the United Nations that contradicts that statement. Same editor started sanitizing [2] and reversing the content of what was Media bias against Bernie Sanders.

For anybody willing to uses their powers of observation, this is clearly an agenda to remove content about progressive leaning politicians and media figures. If that is not possible, to use wikipedia to slime them in order to disparage their credibility. Trackinfo (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo needs a third opinion, I don't get how this could be a misrepresentation. Of course RS/P evergreens not counting for THREE are tricky, and I'm not exactly assuming good faith by closing admins, while boredom or laziness are not ruled out.

–84.46.52.200 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THREE

@Ryk72 and RoySmith: If we all like THREE, how about moving it from the user to the project namespace, and cite or wikilink it in some guideline, e.g., BLP1PROD, for status "informative"/"supplemental" instead of essay? I counted two (1st RealClearPolitics + Good.is). The Vice source is also okay, but mentions Kulinski only in passing. For some progress with {{Better source|date=January 2020}} I've suggested (pending review) the official YouTube PoV about their "four rs of responsibility raise and reduce" efforts, i.e., raise CNN+Fox etc., the missing 4th R is "reliable".
Politicon 2018 is still missing, and I haven't the faintest how relevant it is (for a Social in the City 2018 panelist I'd bet on "not good enough" if not covered in RS). –84.46.53.165 (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm certainly gratified that WP:THREE has become so popular, I'm hesitant to move it into project space. It started out as my personal view of how I interpreted WP:N, and even in my userspace, there's already been some pressure to modify it to more closely align with other people's views. My fear is that if I moved it to project space, it would have additional pressure to evolve in ways that might no longer fit my personal view. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72 and RoySmith: such a heavy essay cant be moved in WP space without "thorough vetting" through an RfC at village pump. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: Putting aside the question of RfCs, neither RoySmith nor I have suggested that the essay be moved to WP space. I referenced the essay because I saw in the Keep !votes that there was a dearth of reference to reliable sources with significant coverage of the article subject. The essay's usefulness as a shortcut to explaining why such sources should be provided, and the positive intent behind a request that they be provided, is not dependent on its location. - Ryk72 ^talk 22:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any requirement to vet essays in project space. In fact, WP:ESSAYPAGES specifically says, Essays ... may be created and edited without overall community oversight. I'm not planning to do that, but I did want to clear up the misconception. Of course, if anybody wants to link to it, that's perfectly fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]