Deletion of Kyle Kulinski (3rd nomination)

Comment: I was not summoned to this article.  I don't have any connection to the subject, don't watch his show and I do not do social media.  Instead, I have a long history of saving content from irresponsible AfDs, including run-ins with several of the thoughtless serial delete voters above.  This has all the signs of other AfDs where deletionists are determined to delete despite mounting evidence.  We have 21 sources at this point; a lot more than at the time of the NOM or even when the supposed cut off happened.  So why haven't they reversed their votes?  We have also had ikilawyering, nit-pickingly removing additional content.  In other words, bad faith editing because they want to achieve the result rather than a just decision.  With a popular youtube based show growing to a half million subscribers over 7 years, Kulinski is a leading progressive commentator.  That, by nature, means he is not establishment or a part of conventional "corporate" media, he is usually at odds with them.  So you want to limit his coverage to appearances in conventional media and exclude the base of his viewership?  He has made several appearances representing his point of view on stage at Politicon.  You don't get that and get invited back if you are a nobody or can't represent your views.  And being named as a co-creator of the Justice Democrats meant he was respected enough amongst that community to be in the room (or on the call) when those ideas were formulated.  I'd guess there were other people involved but they did not carry enough sway to merit being credited.  Simply put we have , we have multiple claims to notability.  He generates content and resulting cross comments daily, so this is an ever growing subject if rational standards were applied, that than the artificial standards used attempting to remove this person from wikipedia's public explanation of who this pundit is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W||WP:GNG)

Comment: OK, I've made up my mind. I've looked at the way reliable sources look at him, and the bond is too weak to say that he satisfies criterion 2 of  (see also the footnote): ({{tq|'''widely recognized''' contribution... '''enduring''' historical record}}. He's widely recognized for founding that organization, but the passing mentions we've all cited don't adequately explain his significance to politics in the grand scheme of things. The two ''The Hill'' articles IP {{sub|2601:5C0:E:9DA4:FDD2:465D:F5B1:9E05}} brought up are just a single sentence linking to a YouTube video, so they do not contribute to satisfying 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO||WP:GNG)