Deletion of Kyle Kulinski (3rd nomination)

Comment: to Justice Democrats. '''''', or I'm betting we'll all be back again next month; no prejudice against recreation if he ever does get  coverage
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT||WP:RS)

Comment: per Bearian's reasoning, missing . Best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: ndash; after a Google News search, there appears to be lots of non-significant coverage / significant coverage in unreliable sources. None of the sources I found make this subject pass , although I can see that some of the Keep voters are using reasoning that coincidentally matches : {{tq|The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.}} Just saying that GNG is not the only notability guideline to discuss
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: Being the co-founder of Justice Democrats should be enough to secure , especially with the current political reality in the U.S. with a substantiated Justice Democrats candidates already in the U.S. Congress
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN)

Comment: looking at the sources in the article, he doesn't pass . He ultimately might be notable, but I don't think there's a single qualifying source in the article (hard to tell if good.is is reliable, and the RCP isn't secondary coverage.) Potentially promotional
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: to Justice Democrats (seeing no need to delete the history and a redirect is inevitable since it's a notable organization he co-founded) - saw this at ANI. Decided to ignore all of the mess above and just do a search for sources. I see a few mentions, a few quotes, and lots of primary sources, but not enough in-depth coverage ''about'' this person to satisfy  (for the small amount of coverage there is,  applies given the very logical alternative page). Any keep argument at this point really needs to surface some additional sources. &mdash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOPAGE)

Comment: I feel so bad for whoever is tasked with closing this mess of a discussion now that the subject has tweeted a link to it) To every editor that wants this article kept, instead of bringing up how many subscribers he has, find non-primary sources to add to the article. The deletion banner at the top of the article has a ''Find sources'' section with a number of useful buttons to press. I'm seeing a lot of https://twitter.com/Rman4100/status/1206682643011518464 off-wiki accusations that we're only considering deleting, moving, or redirecting the article because we're "conservative trolls." I can assure everyone who |came here because they were told to that this is not the case. It's a matter of notability and verity - in other words, if this biographical article about the subject was stripped of the sentences that only link back to the subject's own content, and left only the secondary sources, how much would be left? As of right now, not much. If you believe there are sufficient secondary sources out there, expand the article. Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:MEATPUPPETRY)

Comment: WP:MILL|run of the mill podcaster/YouTuber/political activist, whose |connections to famous people does not confer notability on him. I'm friends with over a dozen |people with articles on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make me notable. I tried to shake hands once with a presidential candidate, yoohoo! Getting interviewed, or interviewing someone on Fox News -- a self-named "entertainment" channel -- does not make one a news-''maker''. I was a Democratic committee person in New York state, so what? Go ahead, Google me! I'm not (yet) notable, and neither is this guy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:GNG)

Comment: to Justice Democrats – simply no coverage in reliable sources beyond passing mentions. |Notability has a special meaning on Wikipedia that is not synonymous with importance or fame. So: we don't care how many YouTube subscribers he has. We don't care about his political leanings or the quality of his commentary. We don't care that he interviewed such-and-such person or appeared at such-and-such event. We don't care that he co-founded a notable organisation – OTINHERITED|he does not inherit its notability. We don't care what |"trivial" articles exist that someone believes are ''clearly'' not as important. All we care about is whether he has received |significant coverage in reliable sources – and despite dozens of meatpuppets having been canvassed to this discussion, not one has been able to provide evidence to show this is the case
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:GNG)

Comment: The subject has almost a million subscribers to his channel. he co-founded Justice Democrats. The subject passes our general notability guideline. We keep subjects that pass GNG with s
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Subject has not received signficant coverage from reliable sources to warrant having his own article (
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)