Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski

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

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 09:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Kulinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article doesn't have enough third party coverage (yet) to warrant its own article. It's been deleted several times already for the same reason, including one revision created by myself. Since I think it's just WP:TOOSOON for his article, I believe it would be best to move it to a draft and WP:SALT it for its own good. Buffaboy ^talk 02:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One of the pitfalls of deleting this article is that Kyle Kulinski is a fairly strong critic of both the mainstream media and mainstream US politics, and he is also involved in setting up the Justice Democrats political action committee intended to primary candidates against corporate-funded Democrats, so there is a risk of creating the perception that he is being deliberately "silenced" by the "establishment". To remedy this, I recreated the article as a redirect to The Young Turks#TYT Network, where he is listed. A perhaps better alternative would be to redirect to Justice Democrats, where he is more prominently mentioned. -Spacemartin (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess another pitfall (without sounding biased towards him) is that media coverage generally avoids YouTube outlets in favor of more "establishment" ones on television, or at least long-established independent commentators like Cenk Uygur (though he did spend time at MSNBC and had a show on Sirius XM). Buffaboy ^talk 04:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Coverage in independent news sources. They aren't particularly reliable, though. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Just keep it for now"/Soft keep I'm saying this because, He starting getting some recognition (mostly thanks to Justice Democrats and connections to The Young Turks) in some parts in both independent and mainstream reliabe source. But just give some more time, if more reliabe sources mention his name and his channel/site. Well if not Buffaboy, You can do this again without my involvement. – Chad The Goatman (talk) (contribs)  00:26, August 4 2017 (UTC)

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