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

The result of the discussion was: Snow Keep. I don't entirely know why Java felt the need to MFD this considering it quite clearly passes GNG .... however nonetheless the community have spoken. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Resubmitted four times for AfC after initial rejection, rejected each time. JavaHurricane 15:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, reversing my nomination a year ago to delete this draft. At that time I nominated it because it was being tendentiously resubmitted. There is a long history.
  • • See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kyle Kulinski.
    • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (4th nomination), which was Delete from article space.
    • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (3rd nomination), which was No Consensus, and two previous AFDs that were also No Consensus.
    • I nominated it for deletion from draft space a year ago because of tendentious resubmission. The closer User:Scottywong, who closed it as Keep, prevented the tendentious resubmission with a three-month full protect, which in retrospect was a better approach.
    • The place for this draft is in draft space as long as there is no disruptive resubmission.
    • Now that partial block has been implemented, any tendentious resubmission or other disruption should be dealt with by a partial block.
    • Subject is a run-of-the-mill left-wing political agitator. Similar disputes are common with run-of-the-mill right-wing political agitators. Neutral point of view is the Second Pillar of Wikipedia.
    • Can this be publicized via the usual lists for Articles for Deletion (without putting it in mainspace)?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The draft is still very active. I've made about 15 edits to the talk page in the last week, and multiple experienced editors are involved. We are taking concrete steps to improve it, such as identifying and removing low quality references, and thoroughly examining sources for notability. We haven't made an AFC submission in several months because we don't want to spam AFC and because we want to get this right. The draft does absolutely no harm in draftspace, incubating, which is the idea behind draftspace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have to note the irony of two people apparently wanting this kept for opposite reasons. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, maybe for User:Vaticidalprophet - How are two editors supporting keeping this draft for opposite reasons? I think that both Novem Linguae and I have said that it should be in draft space for the time being. How are we saying opposite things? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for following up, Robert -- I was making a throwaway comment/joke and, upon review, the joke was made about a misreading. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is borderline passing the GNG. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People are still working on it, and no reason to delete a draft people are working on. Dream Focus 02:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Kulinski passes GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 05:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You just gonna throw people's hard work out like that? I see no harm with this being in the draft space. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 08:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Borderline passing the GNG. Not quite there for mine, but certainly close. - Ryk72 ^talk 09:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The threshold for notability in draft space vs main space is a much lower bar. Last year, I !voted to delete it on notability grounds. I would say that there's a much stronger claim to notability now than there was then. Plus this is very much an active draft. I think some of the references border on trivial and could probably be trimmed down a bit, but I think it's shaping up to be ready to be moved into article space very soon. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep The article about an oft quoted political commentator should have been in mainspace years ago (to explain who this guy is) except political motivated advocates have aggressively tried to keep it (him) out of public view. I believe the concept is called throwing shade, or you could call it censorship. There absolutely is no excuse to remove this work, with close to 50 sources. Trackinfo (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.