Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. There are enough well-founded comments from long established users, who found sources to suggest notability and explained why the article should be improved instead of deleted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Note: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) has never heard of Kevin Paffrath until just now and closed the AfD based on judgement after closing hundreds, if not thousands of other discussions. Still, if you want to drag him off to deletion review, that's your right and your privilege ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Paffrath[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Kevin Paffrath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NPOL. Only routine coverage of his gubernatorial candidacy. Obviously, just running for office does not create notability. I do not see any coverage on his Youtube channel. There is one (vanity?) article about his earnings, but otherwise I don't see any in-depth reliable coverage. 1.6 million followers is a lot but that does not create notability by itself (see Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add - previously deleted at AfD, but due to recent governor candidacy since prior deletion, I am assuming good faith and putting it back through the process. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please tell us El Cid, what exactly did your search that prompted you to make this nomination involve? A casual news aggregator search yielded almost 500 articles relating to Paffrath (many in major publications) that were published prior to his candidacy. I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding how you were only able to come up with one article.Pc031985 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Add - Paffrath had interview on Fox News - National US news - to talk about governorship [1]. Also, platform appears to made a significant numbers of videos concerning his candidacy with me counting 10 videos made in the last week to his youtube channel about the matter. RayaanIrani (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being interviewed on Fox News does not create notability. And the subject making videos about himself certainly does not. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait or Migrate to draft- I don't necessarily disagree on the status of this article at present, but it has just been created. Paffrath seems to me to be the only major Democrat in this major upcoming election, and could get a lot more coverage. Full deletion feels harsh, very quickly after the page creation. I've made what I believe the mistake of flagging pages for deletion right after creation, and it's not always correct. Let's wait a week or two, or migrate it back to a draft for further work. PickleG13 (talk)
I don't think 'waiting' is a good idea, because then the article will just remain indefinitely. If unnotable pages aren't flagged as they are created, they will remain for years or decades. It happens consistently. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 23:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add - Fox News has released an article about Paffrath's video being removed on Instagram which is related to his campaign. [2] I will be honest, I am a little biased as I am a consistent viewer of Meet Kevin and I will try to be as neutral as possible here. However, I do believe Paffrath will become a major candidate and can see many more articles about him coming to light in the next couple of weeks. Elli21486 (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The Curbed and New York Times pieces are independent (and critical) coverage of his youtube channel. There's also the Nashville Post article about his suit with Dave Ramsey. He's either just under or just over the bar in my opinion. Empire3131 (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The page needs a lot of work. Sections are in the wrong place information is jumbled etc... I think if appropriate information is given to the page it should definitely be kept as I believe Mr Paffrath is standing as a genuine candidate. Jim 17:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimwilliams975 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Jimwilliams975 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Keep - Business Insider published an article describing Kevin O'Leary's comments on an interview with Paffrath [3]. Pat Hiban has interviewed Paffrath as real-estate investor and developer in Ventura CA [4]. BiggerPockets has also interviewed Paffrath [5]. New York Times has published a multi-page op-ed on Paffrath [6]. Inman News published an article detailing Paffrath's 2019 arrest in connection with a dispute with another real estate investor, Grant Cardone [7]. Statter911 has covered Paffrath's 'citizen reporting' of Detroit home fires [8]. Paffrath is NOT a household name by any stretch. However, the move delete the page from Wiki is pre-mature and has not been fully considered. I don't know or watch the guy, but its clear this is somebody wellknown and influential in real-estate investing circles (not just youtube). Matasomething (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC) — Matasomething (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kiq2n5-bDA
  2. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/newsom-meet-kevin-weanie-baby-censored-instagram
  3. ^ https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/gamestop-stock-netflix-comeback-shark-tank-kevin-oleary-short-sellers-2021-4-1030302964
  4. ^ https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/685-give-more-get-more-business-philosophy-real-estate/id832885584?i=1000417136887
  5. ^ https://art19.com/shows/biggerpockets-real-estate-podcast/episodes/0cb64e35-cfef-4f29-b739-7dc096107733
  6. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/magazine/finance-gurus-youtube.html
  7. ^ https://www.inman.com/2019/03/05/popular-youtubing-agent-facing-criminal-charges-for-video-antics/
  8. ^ https://www.statter911.com/2019/07/07/meet-kevin-wow-a-citizen-reporter-who-could-be-the-new-rhoda-young/
  • Why delete this page? I don't understand. He's running for Governor of California. keep kevin Jjeff500 (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC) — Jjeff500 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per BLP1E. There are over 22,000 Youtube channels with at least as many subscribers as Mr. Paffrath. Most in favor of "keep" are repeating some variation of the fact that he declared a (longshot) candidacy for governor three days ago. It smells like a classic 1E-type publicity stunt which will not generate WP:LASTING coverage. AOC didn't have an article until she won her primary. Any supposition of notability for Paffrath today is CRYSTALBALLing hypothetical future notability if he wins a primary. BTW, it's worth noting that the canvassing is coming from the man himself, as he's directed his youtube/twitter followers to brigade this discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • He passes WP:BLP1E, he's been covered in the New York Times and Curbed for his youtube channel, and his youtube channel makes him a high-profile individual by the definition at WP:LOWPROFILE. He might fail GNG/ENT, and definitely fails NPOL right now.Empire3131 (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with your argument is that unlike AOC, who was an obscure bartender and low-level campaign worker prior to winning election, Paffrath is not primarily a politician or political candidate. His candidacy had little impact on the size of his platform, and almost 500 news articles in major publications had already been written about him over the years prior to his political announcement. By all appearances this is little different than a Bloomberg-style campaign, a political outsider with considerable pre-existing notability (albeit less than Bloomberg) and substantial financial backing ($20M net worth) who wants to win office.Pc031985 (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adding to public figure interviews adding more evidence to high profile figure. KUSI News out of San Diego interviewed him at 7:24am on May 20, 2021. While the reference video is from Paffrath's channel it does show proof of live TV interview to public. [1].
    • In addition Kevin O'Leary who is a figure of note with his own Wiki page has recently (May 2021) done a featured story on Paffrath that was featured on both CNBC [2] and MSN [3]
    • And while it has been mentioned above in addition to all the interviews for the governor race he was always featured in news stories last year such as being featured on MSN's Millennial Money news segment in November 2020.[4] GalakStarscraper (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that GalakStarscraper (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. Good day GorillaWarfare -- I was not canvassed. I have helped with Wiki articles before. Searched the topic, saw the discussion and added to it. GalakStarscraper (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for clarifying, I'm sure the closing admin will take that into consideration. Some people were unquestionably canvassed here, and so I have simply applied that tag to anyone who has previously contributed, but has not edited in 2021 aside to comment in this discussion and/or edit Paffrath's page. Certainly there are other reasonable explanations for it besides canvassing, but it does help to tag anomalous comments in discussions such as this where off-wiki attention has been drawn. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKiP_cyQglw
  2. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/06/kevin-oleary-reacts-to-a-couple-who-earn-6-million-dollars.html
  3. ^ https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smallbusiness/kevin-o-leary-reacts-to-millennial-couple-bringing-in-millions-from-youtube/vi-BB1gqM6x?ocid=a2hs
  4. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/millennial-couple-earns-6-million-dollars-a-year-from-youtube-and-real-estate.html
  • Delete or wait per WP:BLP1E. The original article appeared as if it was written by the subject or someone close to him. The article's BLP1E status seems to hinge on (a) whether YouTube followers make a subject notable, and (b) whether running for office makes a subject notable. Many people run for office, including the governorship of California, yet are not considered notable, so the answer to (b) seems to be a relatively uncontroversial "no". The answer to (a) seems to be an interesting question, in that the subject derives income from publicity and publicity from income, and therefore seeks WP mention as a means of driving both. I would say that the article should wait until the subject does something notable. There are many real estate agents in California. Voronwae (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable political candidate with huge promotional concerns, fails BLP1E, 10YT. Political candidates notable only within their candidacy do not pass our notability guidelines unless some major exception applies, which isn't the case here yet. SportingFlyer T·C 15:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a notable figure who meets all WP:GNG criteria. BLP1E doesn't apply since he was highly notable prior to running for office, and the decision to run didn't have a significant impact on his existing platform. He had already become a high-tier figure in the podcast/video-news world, interviewing very well-known voices in videos that get hundreds of thousands of viewers each, and already had a considerably larger regular viewership than many cable and broadcast TV news programs. Most of his interview subjects of recent years are notable enough for articles, which says something. There is plenty of secondary-source coverage to warrant an inclusion; a simple aggregator search yielded almost 500 articles in notable news sources that were published prior to his political announcement (with most of the overall coverage predating his campaign), which scuttles 1E arguments that coverage/notability resulted mainly from his candidacy, and makes primary characterizations of 'political candidate' disingenuous or uninformed. I found that coverage within a few minutes, so I'm not sure what exactly was involved in the search by the deletion nominator El Cid, who incredibly claims he found just one article. Flyer's speculative concerns around promotion would be counterbalanced by a possible political motive to put him out of view (particularly given his ability to self-fund a major on-the-ground campaign). I'm not claiming that towards anyone here, I just feel the two factors cancel themselves out.Pc031985 (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2021 — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Pc031985 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
    • False, not canvassed. I have edited WP extensively on a variety of topics but it had been a while and I lost track of my previous username. I don't even support Paffrath's politics. I am here because subject is clearly notable, and tired of the frequent bullying by cliques of WP editors who seek to tear down and bury unpopular/inconvenient people.Pc031985 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the explanation, I'm sure the closer will take that into account. If you are able to remember your previous username, it is best practice to declare the connection on your userpage using {{User previous account}} or something similar. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don’t delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:1A03:C672:C07D:4797:C900:4A70 (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC) — 2603:8000:1A03:C672:C07D:4797:C900:4A70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated above (except YouTube and podcasts). ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Superastig, please be specific, and help the closing administrator out. That admin is not going to look at your comment, then go back, and simply assume that all the others must be OK. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:GNG. There are in-depth,reliable sources to meet requirements for GNG --Kemalcan (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kemalcan, you will have to be much more specific than that if you want to convince the closing administrator. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:GNG. Noticed Fox40, KUSI, John & Ken FM 640 in LA, and Kennedy Saves the World (Fox Radio), each added articles since the discussion above has begun. Added citations for the reference of any discussion above, which likely has not considered these citations yet. WalterWhite72 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC) — WalterWhite72 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately those sorts of sources (I may have missed one) appear to be routine campaign articles. Wikipedia keeps or deletes articles based on enduring notability, and the vast majority of political candidates do not have enduring notability, and he hasn't risen to that level yet. While it's not impossible he would be notable as a Youtuber, not only has that not been made clear, but this article was clearly created to support his candidacy. SportingFlyer T·C 23:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the coverage in the New York Times, Curbed and the Nashville Post that Empire3131 pointed out earlier. He is marginally notable as a real estate investor and YouTuber. I am taking a look only at the coverage that pre-dates his candidacy because he obviously fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate with routine campaign announcements and interviews in a race likely to have a massive field of candidates. The references are a shambles, and the article needs a lot of work, and the most important thing is that the article must not be permitted to become a campaign brochure. Many of the people commenting above have been canvassed and have negligible knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The closing administrator will have to discount those comments and give highest priority to the informed, policy based comments, but that's why administrators get paid far more than YouTube influencers, right? Just kidding. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the Nashville Post is significant - it's just about a lawsuit, and the Curbed article was written before their New Yorker purchase. Ignoring the campaign, I still don't think it's enough: there's a reason why this article was launched to co-incide with the campaign. SportingFlyer T·C 12:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Curbed article was written 5 days after Vox Media's purchase of Curbed was announced. Regardless, I think Curbed has been a reliable source both before and after its acquisition. I agree that the Nashville Post article is marginal. Empire3131 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Kevin Paffrath and his campaign team since they are following this discussion based on this Twitter post and this YouTube video: Please see Talk:Kevin Paffrath#Photos of Kevin Paffrath: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials (permanent link) regarding how to add photos of Kevin Paffrath to his Wikipedia article. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I believe Cunard's analysis of sources shows notability. If not as a politician, than a YouTuber, I guess. versacespaceleave a message! 11:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a multimillionaire landlord who once extolled the virtues of misleading tenants and vigorously refusing to rent to people with suboptimal credit scores ... I think this might be one of those times when an "influencer" will regret having a Wikipedia page. XOR'easter (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No kidding! Sucks for them! Although they did respond saying it's normal for property managers to have credit criteria and to conceal owner identity. Seems like Wiki should probably provide some sort of clarification there given that the phrasing of the NYT article seems misleading with this context. But that is what they said. I do suppose that's one of the dangers of secondary sources though for people who have wiki's on them. WalterWhite72 (talk)
  • Keep looks to be clearly notable, one being a YouTuber doesn't make them less notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I point out the NYT article describes him as "one of dozens" That's good evidence of non notability from a RS. Additionally, we should never be influenced by an external campaign to keep a WP article, for it can be assumed that this shows COI. This applies whether the coverage is positive or negative. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take another look at the New York Times article, DGG. "Dozens" refers to the number of videos uploaded to YouTube daily about real estate, and the word does not apply to Paffrath. The NYT didn't write about those other YouTubers but instead chose to publish ten paragraphs about Paffrath. That's significant coverage. The article in its current form is far different than when it was nominated, because experienced, uninvolved editors have improved it dramatically. My "keep" recommendation has nothing to do with any external campaign. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per indepth coverage in this CNBC article, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/millennial-couple-earns-6-million-dollars-a-year-from-youtube-and-real-estate.html, which, with the lesser mentions, is sufficient for Wikipedia:Notability, and has little to do with running for governor. That can only add to his notability. --GRuban (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Note: GRuban (talk · contribs) has contributed to plenty of unrelated articles over his fifteen years at Wikipedia, and has not been canvassed to come here, but would feel left out if he didn't have small print after his Keep opinion. --GRuban (talk) 22:15, 26 May 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Paffrath_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1220479564"