Talk:Kevin Paffrath

Paffrath CA Governor Campaign

Paffrath announced an official run for Governor of California. Deletion wouldn't be appropriate and I don't think the Wikipedia deletion policy would apply. The deletion consideration should be removed. Interneteffects (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely in favor of removing the deletion tag.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The normal length of a deletion debate is one week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

EastCountyToday

What makes this reliable? Who is Michael Burkholder? « Ryūkotsusei » 15:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The tag I've added was removed again, therefore I've removed the source and what it cites. « Ryūkotsusei » 02:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Photos of Kevin Paffrath: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials

• Comment to Kevin Paffrath and his campaign team since they are following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination) based on this Twitter post and this YouTube video: commons:File:Meet-Kevin-Paffrath.jpg was deleted as a copyright violation and removed from this article. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Donating your photographs and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online if you would like to donate photos of Kevin Paffrath for use in his Wikipedia article. You will need to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using an email template like the one at commons:Commons:Email templates to release the copyrighted material under a free license. Please post any questions you have to commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about stewardship of the article

No specific evidence is cited for personal criticism. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User GorillaWarfare has made near or over 100 edits to this article and the recent deletion debate. Her first activity in the deletion debate was investigating every editor's history and tagging many of them as 'canvassed,' sometimes on very weak grounds. She then took it on herself to rewrite the entire article, unilaterally deleting paragraphs created by many editors and inserting an oversized paragraph that focused on all the negative attributes of the Curbed article (while omitting positive or neutral content), and the negative coverage in every other source, casting Paffrath as a more controversial figure than he really is in the overall coverage. Her latest fixation is on the word 'landlord,' which is sometimes used pejoratively to connote a slothful or tight-fisted slumlord. Paffrath's real estate activities as discussed in the sources cover a wide range: fix & flip, fix live in & flip, 'house hacking,' fix & rent. He also manages the properties himself, unlike many who hire property managers to do so. He does very little or no buy and rent (i.e. without doing major renovations), inherit and rent, etc., which would fall under the status of 'pure landlording' rather than investing or developing. Landlord is a property-law/contract-law status, not an occupation. The occupations would be real estate investor, developer, broker, property manager, etc. Literally every edit of the upwards of 100 I've seen has been markedly negative/pejorative in tone. I may be wrong, but that would seem to point to an agenda to discredit Paffrath. I welcome anyone to find an exception. In reviewing her contributions to the website, I've noticed that she tends to focus on certain figures (usually BLPs) and insert pejorative language into their articles (such insertions frequently being the only change that is made to the article) or outright rewrite the article in negative terms, which is sometimes warranted but oftentimes unwarranted, simplistic, or exaggerated in my opinion. 73.248.126.206 (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC) The article is in vastly better shape as a result of GorillaWarfare's contributions. As far as I can see, it now accurately summarizes the reliable sources cited in the article, which is precisely what a well written Wikipedia article ought to do. Please point out specific examples of where sources are inaccurately summarized. I am not seeing it. Wikipedia biographies should not be hagiographies or campaign brochures. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC) I agree it's better since around the point that her contributions began, but not really because of them. If you trace her contributions, the article was already vastly improved from the original poorly written praise-fest/folk tale. She then reordered a couple of the paragraphs and in my opinion overweighted it with negative coverage in the career section. It's not a hagiography, but it's not a mouth-frothing SPLC hit piece either. I don't at all agree with Paffrath's politics and am not even a big fan of him. But the overall coverage of/public reaction to Paffrath is as an astute, successful real estate investor who offers valuable advice, who is a tad dweeby/cheesy, does interesting interviews with a wide range of people, puts out way way too many stimulus-update videos, and is running against Newsom. Not a saint, but in no way a devil either. Outside of the Ramsey/Cardone feud, there is little evidence of any beefs or controversy with Paffrath, certainly not from any past tenants or, unlike many political figures, from any members of the public. I've been aware of Paffrath for a few years, and the only people I've come across who seem to have a big problem with him or any problem at all with him are a handful of Wikipedia editors. His tenant screening practices (which are, for better or worse, standard procedure in the industry, i.e. to have fixed criteria and try not to waver from them) have had little or no note outside of the Curbed article.73.248.126.206 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC) I am asking for specific examples and you are not providing them. The Curbed article is a major contributor to his notability, so must be summarized. Which source calls Paffrath "astute"? We could add that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC) I very much disagree with your notion that "landlord" is a pejorative equivalent to slumlord. My late father owned rental properties and if someone asked me if he was a landlord, I would instantly answer yes. It is a neutral term. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC) When Wikipedia editors accurately summarize reliable sources, that is not "having a big problem with him". That's doing our job. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Yes, that is our job. But when 100 edits in a row are negative, it does smack of a vendetta or personal agenda, not fair-minded, objective contribution. Again, that's just my general sense of it, I could be wrong.73.248.126.206 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC) My father also owns a rental property, I have 15+ years experience in the industry and have no necessary problem with the term. It's about the way in which the term is applied. We should be using the most accurate terms possible; landlord is excessively narrow and less accurate/inclusive than real estate investor/entrepreneur. What I said was that it can be used pejoratively; just like 'Mexican' or 'Jew' some other descriptor is not at all pejorative on its face, but can be used pejoratively, either flagrantly or underhandedly. It's about the trends, not single examples. I don't currently have the time to cite all her past edits. If you look at the waves of edits, the effect is markedly negative, often inappropriately so IMO. OK fine, you see one or two, maybe it's just representing what the sources say, but when it happens 100 times in a row with no exceptions that cast the subject neutrally or positively, my eyebrows raise. Yes, it needed much balancing originally, no argument there, but that was largely achieved before her contributions. Based on what I've seen, I'm just concerned there will be constant oversight to preserve and incrementally enhance the negative tone.73.248.126.206 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC) 'Astute' may not have been used in the sources, but language describing rapid, large-scale success (setting aside YouTube revenues) from a starting point at/near zero has been used repeatedly, which implies astuteness. I know this isn't the way Wikipedia policy works, but the primary reality around Paffrath is not the media coverage, it is his YouTube impact. Yes he is notable in the 'reliable' media, but nowadays YouTube is way bigger and more impactful than Curbed and most of the other sources put together. It may just be YT but his regular viewership is bigger than most TV programs. I just don't think the overall impression one gets from the coverage is nearly as negative or controversial as GW has cast it. Not to say the material inserted is incredibly negative, I just feel it's a little bit out of balance. Again, it's more about an ongoing push to incrementally make the article more negative (by insertions or removal of any neutral/positive content) than it is about the current version.73.248.126.206 (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Concerns that are vague, generalized, subjective and nonspecific are of no value, and concerns based on dislike of the work that a Wikipedia editor chooses to do are of even less value. There will be constant oversight to ensure that this article does not become a campaign brochure. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC) They're not vague or subjective. I reviewed the contributions and they're all or virtually all unequivocally negative. Once or twice, OK, but 100 in a row really with no exceptions raises eyebrows. I don't want it to be a campaign brochure either (you're sort of putting words in mouth/setting up a straw man by implying I did want it to be that) and I will help make sure that doesn't happen. But we also need to discourage commandeering of the article for the opposite purposes. Maybe that's not why GW is here, I just have some concerns that it is. 73.248.126.206 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC) You keep saying "100s of negative edits in a row" without giving a specific example; you can't even explain how in the context of the article, or some sentence or paragraph, "landlord" is supposed to be pejorative. You yourself call the man "astute", and in the next post you have to admit that that's your own term. You say you don't have the time "currently" to look at her edits, and so you can't cite anything specific, and yet you have no qualms saying "Literally every edit of the upwards of 100 I've seen" are negative. So, I'm going to put on my administrative hat and archive this, with a neutral heading, since from where I'm standing you are doing nothing but attacking another editor and making pejorative comments without even citing a shred of evidence. If you really want to pursue this, collect the evidence and take it to WP:ANI. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Landlord

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

73.248.126.206, can you please stop edit warring to remove "landlord"? A person who maintains properties to rent to tenants is a landlord, and the sources describe that as a major portion of what Paffrath does. Multiple reliable sources describe him as a landlord, including the NYT source ("Paffrath, a multimillionaire landlord") and Curbed (repeatedly describes him as such and so I won't quote them all; also includes a quote in which he describes himself as a landlord). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I added landlord to the article, RE investor also belongs since it's a primary occupation as described in sources.73.248.126.206 (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, no, I added landlord to the article and you reverted me multiple times. I am glad you now seem to agree it ought to be included. I have no issue with "investor" (which I did not remove), but which source specifies he is only a real estate investor? The Newsweek source you added describes him as "an investor and real estate broker", and other sources describe his stock market investing (and related YouTube videos). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Nashville Post probably among others describes as RE investor. RE investor encompasses landlord, not the other way around. Landlord to many implies sitting back and just owning, where Paffrath's career was built on sweat equity and rehabbing properties over months to years, then later renting out, which is better described as real estate investment than landlording. Historically and etymologically, landlording refers to heirs with no necessary merit who necessarily did nothing other than inherit property and collect tribute. That's my issue. You insist on having landlord included and obviously have 'backup' here, so I just put both and am not going to push the issue further.73.248.126.206 (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, IP, that's bullshit. I don't care about "landlord" one way or the other, but I'm actually inclined to agree with you (sorry GW). I am not anyone's backup, and anyone who needs a backup better look for someone with better judgment and a more even-keeled temper than me. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Who mentioned you?73.248.126.206 (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Plenty of real estate investors are landlords, but the former does not imply the latter. It makes a lot more sense to include "investor" to encompass real estate and stock market investing, and include landlord separately since he has received significant coverage for that in particular. I don't know what you mean by "backup"—some editors who have separately been involved with this article and apparently also think your behavior was disruptive, but I've had nothing to do with them coming here.

If you think I've been disruptive or am POV-pushing, take it with evidence to ANI like Drmies suggested. But you're probably going to have to explain how "landlord" is a pejorative term (which seems to be based on your own personal interpretations of the term, and somehow seem to be entirely missing from the article on landlord, aside from the related discussion of the term "slumlord"), and explain how your accusations of my entirely negative editing jibe with my adding positive commentary to the article to balance where we were only quoting a portion of a source (for example [1] and [2]). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The sources don't really focus on the stock investing. Being familiar with Paffrath and thus what the sources discuss, the following is Paffrath's arc: 1) Successful real estate investor, primarily fix/flip and fix/rent. Also worked as realtor to supplement income. 2) Once achieved success and already multi-millionaire, YouTube channel started gaining traction 3) Later made money from YouTube, mainly last couple years in an 11 year real estate career. He's not really a 'stock investor,' he's a real estate investor who got rich off first real estate and later YouTube, and then invested his money in the stock market like so many other Americans. Similarly, the average retiree with a 401k is not a 'stock investor' by occupation. Neither do we list hobbies in the lead (gardening enthusiast, etc.). In describing his primary occupations without going over the top, I believe YouTuber, real estate investor, and real estate broker are the best choices, and are in order in terms of both public relevance and amount of income. You insist on specifically adding landlord (when it's typically one element of RE investment, and Paffrath is engaged in multiple elements), and it's very obvious that if I push the point I will get banned and you won't even though you are the one doing the reverting, so that's where we are. 73.248.126.206 (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Being familiar with Paffrath and thus what the sources discuss I think this may be part of the issue, because you seem to be basing a lot of your opinions on what this article ought to say on your personal knowledge of Paffrath rather than what the RS say. I'm not going to die on any hill over "real estate investor" vs. "investor" if you strongly believe it needs to be specified, but given two sources that give significant coverage to him being a landlord I do believe that needs to be mentioned. Would American YouTuber, real estate investor and landlord, and real estate broker be a reasonable compromise?

it's very obvious that if I push the point I will get banned and you won't even though you are the one doing the reverting, so that's where we are. We were both reverting, as you well know. Standard procedure on Wikipedia is: editor A makes a change; editor B reverts it to the status quo; editor A begins a discussion to achieve consensus for their change. Not "editor A wars their preferred version into the article". I was kind enough to begin this discussion for you, but in the future it is typically expected that editor A (you) will do this. 17:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The question is, why are you so fixated on the word? If you weren't, there would've been no discussion here, the edit would have sailed by. You know that 'real estate investment' includes buying/renting and fixing/renting properties i.e. landlording, and you know that it also includes non-landlording activities i.e. building/developing, fixing and flipping. You know that Paffrath has been engaged in both of these, the renting-out and non-renting-out aspects. The umbrella term reads better, is more concise, and is more representative of reality. Yet for some reason you insist either on the redundancy we have now or omitting a major occupation; yes, I understand that you claim that it's to combine real estate and stocks.73.248.126.206 (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've spent this time to ask a question only to say at the end you already have the answer: yes, I understand that you claim that it's to combine real estate and stocks. That is true, though my position is primarily based on what I've said above already: his primarily notability comes from his YouTube channel and being a landlord. The fixing/flipping is barely mentioned in sourcing, and one source suggests he's actually moved away from doing this (CNBC discussing the Paffraths' unsuccessful attempt to add construction to their services). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That refers to a regular construction company that offered services to external parties. The fixing and flipping rather than renting was the basis for at least half of his YouTube content, possibly more than renting/landlording.73.248.126.206 (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps that is true, but it is not what secondary sources have focused on, at least that I've seen. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

They've focused heavily on the rehabbing and renovations aspects.73.248.126.206 (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Which? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Business Insider CNBC and Nashville Post describe as real estate investor. Fixing & flipping is described in the Business Insider article probably among others haven't had time to check.73.248.126.206 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You said that secondary sources have "focused heavily on the rehabbing and renovations aspects". I'm asking which sources you were referring to, not which sources use the term "real estate investor". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Rehabbing and renovations were discussed in CNBC article and Business Insider. Only the Curbed article focuses primarily on the tenant-screening aspects that you put front and center in your oversized Career paragraph. I couldn't access NYT Magazine since I'm not a subscriber. This article previously had more than 40 sources, half of which were removed by editors I believe including you or possibly you chiefly during your rewriting of the article (there were a couple repeats cited slightly different that should have been removed). I know some of those discussed his business at length but I'd have to go back and find them.73.248.126.206 (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) CNBC describes some of their earlier renovations, and the construction arm of their business that they have since shut down, but references to ongoing rehab work are fairly minimal aside from mentioning things like his wife coordinating contractors. I'm also not a subscriber to NYT Magazine, but opening the page in an incognito window helps with the paywall. You can also try to see if you have better success with the archived version.

All revisions of the page are visible in page history. I believe [3] is the revision before I became involved in editing. You are correct that I removed a small number of sources, but it was because they were unreliable and should not be used. I try to be pretty clear in edit summaries about why I've removed sources; scrolling through, some of the ones I removed were "Naibuzz" and "The Wealthy Niche" (both clickbaity sites that don't appear to have any sort of real editorial oversight), a blog post by someone else Dave Ramsey was involved in litigation with, two ZergNet gossip sites, a broken link on KPVI.com where I couldn't find whatever the source was supposed to be (I think it was maybe publishing his press release, but then they took it down for some reason), and a publication by The Mail on Sunday (RSP entry). I don't particularly appreciate the implication that I was removing quality sources that discussed his businesses. I think you are correct that you were also seeing such a long list of sources because some of the editors were previously adding a new citation rather than reusing the same citation in multiple places -- I did a lot of citation deduplication. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I saw a couple duplicates like 3-4ish of upwards of 45 citations. 'Unreliable and should not be used' is vague, and reliability is not as objective as many here like to claim. Many 'reliable' sources have published false stories over the years, even been proven to have been fully infiltrated and commandeered by spooks (of course, here it's 'alleged' and 'past'), and suffered no penalty among the WP insiders/high-level admins; I'd like to know why that is.

To return to the point at hand: as evidence that 'landlord' is not a common occupation/description in WP leads, consider that there are only 24 American landlords listed on Wikipedia including Paffrath, when there are thousands of notable Americans who have been in the real estate business. Of those 24, only 7 past and present Americans including Paffrath are described as landlords in the opening sentence, the rest as real estate investors, real estate developers, or businessmen. This proves it's just not a typical way to formally describe someone's profession, and in this case is redundant, hence my edit. One reason it might be used, though maybe not here, is if someone wants to appeal to those who have negative views of landlords especially amid political talk of 'canceling rent' and especially in a state with the highest rental rates in the nation, and to take advantage of the negative historical and contemporary connotations the word sometimes has (this isn't an accusation, but provides further basis why the term is both inappropriate and unnecessary here)73.248.126.206 (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) If you would like to discuss the general subject of source reliability on Wikipedia, this talk page is certainly not the place. WT:RS or WP:RSN maybe would be. But I have neither the time nor the energy to entertain a tangent about (alleged or actual) Cold War CIA infiltration of sourcing on the talk page of an article about someone who wasn't even born then. If you would like to revisit any specific source that was previously used here and its reliability we can, but I think the sources I removed were pretty clearly not ones we should be using. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't find your WP:OTHERCONTENT argument about landlords particularly convincing. I can find a list of article which do describe their subjects as landlords (for example, Albert Laboz, Steve Witkoff, Douglas Jemal) just as easily as you can find a list of ones that do not. Similarly, article categorization on Wikipedia is haphazard at best, and there are plenty of articles about American landlords that are not tagged as such (two such examples of sources about Americans who are described in the leads as landlords but were not included in Category:American landlords are Richard LeFrak and Jerome Lyle Rappaport).

One can just as easily make the counterargument to One reason it might be used, though maybe not here, is if someone wants to appeal to those who have negative views of landlords especially amid political talk of 'canceling rent' and especially in a state with the highest rental rates in the nation, and to take advantage of the negative historical and contemporary connotations the word sometimes has. Someone with an interest in giving Paffrath some PR spin for his gubernatorial campaign might wish to downplay his status as a landlord by using an umbrella term like "real estate investor" to make him more appealing to people who dislike landlords, despite the fact that the most significant coverage he has received outside of his YouTube channel is for his landlording, not house-flipping or whatever else real estate investors do. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Uh, the three you cited (Laboz, Witkoff, Jemal) are among the 6 + Paffrath that I cited. You claim Curbed (an industry blog that is totally obscure to the general public, and survives almost entirely off referral links in Vox-owned NY Magazine articles) is the 'most significant.' I work in the field and have never even heard of Curbed, unlike all of the other sources cited. Talk about candidates for deletion, they barely have any coverage at all. Maybe it's because they're owned by 'reliable' Vox? If a low-view publication writes a full-length derogatory profile piece while major publications write less (but still a substantial amount), that doesn't make them the most notable source. Your 'plenty of others' is one, since LeFrak isn't described in first sentence as landlord and use in later sentence is appropriate to avoid repeating descriptors which is preferred in writing style. Your counter-argument fails; the bottom line is that it's extremely uncommon wording, and there's a reason for that that has nothing to do with active political campaigns. 'Whatever it is they do;' shouldn't you have some inkling of this before talking? There are many other aspects to the real estate business other than simply being on the title and collecting rent, and I've established that Paffrath fixes and flips which is not landlording. He also rehabs and renovates poor condition properties which goes beyond just buying a property and leasing it out. Only one article heavily uses the landlord term, the others say 'real estate business' 'real estate investor' etc.73.248.126.206 (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Uh, the three you cited (Laboz, Witkoff, Jemal) are among the 6 + Paffrath that I cited. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Okay, I'm not sure why you're "uh"-ing me since I have no way of knowing from your comment which seven articles you found. My point remains that WP:OTHERCONTENT is unconvincing. At AfD it seemed the WP:SIGCOV in the Curbed article was one of the key reasons the article was kept, so I'm pretty comfortable that other editors have evaluated the source and found it suitable. If you would like to challenge the reliability of the source at WP:RSN, be my guest. I think we're beginning to go in circles here on this same topic, because I've already explained why I think "landlord" ought to be used several times, so inviting additional input is probably the best next step. I'll do that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, 'we're going in circles,' the final cop-out of someone who has lost an argument. As I said there were originally 40-some sources, most of which were household names who gave Paffrath significant coverage, if not always his own piece, though there were several of those also. Just because you and a couple others say Curbed (which happens to be the basis for virtually all the negative material you inserted and your 'landlord' primary descriptor; and which again, is a now-defunct blog that according to WP only has 2 non-affiliated outlets that have ever covered it) is the most significant doesn't make it so. There was ample other coverage to establish notability. 73.248.126.206 (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Charming, but you don't need to try to bait an argument with me. I've solicited outside input at WP:NPOVN#Kevin Paffrath: Landlord?. Whatever consensus results is fine with me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't look at the article, just did a search for independent reliable sources:

• Fox (May 23, 2021) "YouTuber Kevin Paffrath"
• Newsweek via MSN (May 17, 2021) "a popular YouTube star"
• CNBC (November 19, 2020) No labels' "But the bulk of their income isn’t coming from real estate transactions or rental income. The couple makes money through Kevin’s YouTube channel" and "Over the next few years, they continued to buy, renovate and rent out properties while Kevin finished up his degree at UCLA in 2014. Today, they own 22 properties in Southern California: 20 rentals, one in escrow and the home they live in. Nine are currently being renovated."
• NYT (March 4, 2021) "Southern California real estate broker"
• Nashville Post (Oct 11, 2019) "real estate YouTuber"
• Business Insider (Dec 2019) "real-estate investor and YouTube sensation"
• Curbed (Nov 2019) "landlord influencer"

The most consistent "label" seems to be YouTuber. What about "...is an American YouTuber who owns The Paffrath Organization, a real estate company." ? Schazjmd (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Landlord and recent descriptors

July 20, 2021: No idea who had the prior conversation on landlord dispute here, and I have no issue with the reference to landlord - the issue is the most RECENT and notable articles refer to Kevin Paffrath as a social media personality, NOT as a landlord. In fact, little of his recent work shows land lording. I don't see a tenant video or related landlord video in months. What I do see is FACTUAL: Politico makes NO reference to landlord and instead says "Youtube star." https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/06/07/its-click-politics-social-media-stars-join-california-recall-field-1385331 Newsweek declares him as an internet personality and Youtube star: https://www.newsweek.com/meet-kevin-governor-1592294 The Associated Press referred to him as a "YouTube creator" https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-health-government-and-politics-elections-california-c5eedc7f144b2e7baa5745b800e67709 The New York Times most recently referred to him as a "Youtube personality" with NO reference to real estate especially land lording. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/us/newsom-recall-candidates.html

So unless FACTUAL sources are to be ignored from July 2021 in favor of a blog from 2019, the "landlord" reference does not accurately depict Kevin Paffrath and Wikipedia should stand for accuracy.

WalterWhite72 (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead describes him first as a YouTuber, which is appropriate. However, articles that don't mention that he is a landlord can't be used to contradict articles that do. If you have any RS that specifically say he is no longer a landlord, feel free to provide them. But a source that does not write that the sky is blue can't be used to contradict the statement that it is. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone's intention here is to remove the reference to "landlord" - however referencing a 2019 description and refusing to INCLUDE (not replace) an updated description is unjust. If only one description should be used, the most recent, most-reputable description should be used. A blog should not have weight over Politico, the LA Times, NYT, and Newsweek. AGAIN, there is NO dispute to including landlord in the body or quite frankly the preview. However, if it is to be used in preview, it shall include the most recent, most-properly sourced reference.WalterWhite72 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I posted the edit warring notice on your talk page, so hopefully you've familiarized yourself. We do not resolve disputes on Wikipedia by posting on a discussion page and then immediately implementing our desired change, then the other editor does the same, and so on. It is standard to retain the stable version of the article while the new change is discussed. I do not wish to breach WP:3RR (as you already have) and so I am not reverting your most recent changes, but I would recommend you do.

The description you are trying to include about "YouTube personality" is exactly the same as what we already say in the lead sentence, which is that he is a YouTuber. It adds no information, it just says the same exact thing twice. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Leaving the lead paragraph off with "landlord influencer" implies that Kevin Paffrath is a Youtuber who is a landlord influencer. Judging by the most recent videos and campaign ballot designation, Kevin Paffrath appears to be more of a financial educator and analyst. Perhaps that should be used. But leaving off as a "landlord influencer" implies he's regularly discussing land lording, which is something it doesn't appear has been done in over 6 months on his channel. If Youtuber is redundant but most accurate, then perhaps "landlord influencer" is a dated description. People do change what they're known for, after all. WalterWhite72 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, find contradictory sources if you think this is outdated, but your original research is not sufficient. You added "In 2019,..." which I have no objection to. It is adding duplicative content, removing the descriptor without consensus, describing it as a "blog" without a source, and now adding WP:PROMO content like "social media star" that I object to, and the edit warring of course. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If the descriptor of Youtuber is redundant, then so is landlord. Why not just remove BOTH and keep it simple by using the first line everyone agrees on?WalterWhite72 (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"Landlord" and "landlord influencer" are two very different things. "YouTuber" and "YouTube personality" are not. If you want to change the lead sentence to say "YouTube personality" instead of "YouTuber" that's fine with me, they're synonyms in my eyes. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

-Well let's consider what other articles are saying as well. Many reference "real estate investor" "financial educator" "financial analyst." What about something like this:

In 2019, he was described by the blog Curbed as a "landlord influencer",[6] however is most recently described as financial educator and analyst on Youtube, a more broad influencer description likely due to the lack of recent landlord-specific content discussed by him.[7][8][9][10]WalterWhite72 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I've already linked you to WP:OR, which I recommend you read—particularly WP:SYNTH. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I've ready - not seeing what you mean though. Citations have been provided. WalterWhite72 (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"however" adds editorializing that is not in the sources to suggest that he is no longer a "landlord influencer". "likely due to the lack of recent landlord-specific content discussed by him" is pure speculation on your part. We should say what is supported by sources, which is that he is a YouTuber, and he is a landlord, and he has been described as a "landlord influencer" by Curbed. The previous lead did this well. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to include what he's "previously" been described as, then we should also include that he's "currently" described as a financial content creator/analyst/real estate investor/real estate broker. WalterWhite72 (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Once you find reliable sources that support the specific claim that he is no longer a landlord (or no longer creates content about landlording), I'd be happy to revisit. Otherwise there is no support for your suggestion that this is a "previous" descriptor. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we remove landlord. I'm just saying that if we're going to say in 2019 he was described as a landlord influencer, then his TODAY's description (again, sources are above), refer to him as a financial educator, analyst, real estate investor, etc. Why are you opposed to using TODAY's descriptions? WalterWhite72 (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"American YouTuber, landlord, and real estate broker" are today's descriptions, and they are the first thing the reader sees. If you want to make the case that "financial educator" and "analyst" ought to be added, be my guest, but you'll need to show similarly significant usage of these terms in reliable sources as the existing ones. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

---

"Financial Advice" https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-health-government-and-politics-elections-california-c5eedc7f144b2e7baa5745b800e67709

"Real Estate Executive" "Real estate sales advice" https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/06/07/its-click-politics-social-media-stars-join-california-recall-field-1385331

"Real estate investor" "Real estate broker" https://www.newsweek.com/meet-kevin-governor-1592294

"Personal finance entrepreneur" "Real estate broker" https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-20/california-newsom-recall-candidates-tax-returns

"Youtube personality" https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/us/newsom-recall-candidates.html

So here are 5 recent sources. NONE of them say "landlord." If you're going to put "landlord" in the title, then you must also say: "real estate broker, real estate investor, real estate executive, personal finance entrepreneur, and Youtube personality (which is different from just Youtuber). Youtuber is just someone who posts. Personality is different.

Now we have two choices: 1. Use all unique descriptors 2. Use the top/most common/most broad descriptor.

I propose: In 2019 (curbed) [etc], but has more recently been described as a "personal financial educator and real estate investor on Youtube." WalterWhite72 (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to the previous discussion to see discussion of "real estate investor" vs. "broker" etc. Please refer to my past comments on the original research of suggesting "landlord" or "landlord influencer" is outdated or no longer accurate. Please refer to my past comment on "YouTuber" vs. "YouTube personality". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I've read your arguments. The point here is simple: For some reason you're interested in "leaving the reader off" with the LAST impression that this person is a landlord influencer. NO recent articles say that; NONE.

Even another 6th piece here from KQED talks about Youtuber and financial advice, not land lording. So Gorilla, in fairness, why do you believe the "last line" impression" should be landlord influencer, when the purpose of wikipedia is accuracy of information, and your information is clearly dated? Referring me to your prior posts isn't helping because I'm bringing NEW arguments: for some reason it seems there's an interest in spinning a negative narrative here. Again, I'm coming from a neutral point of view of stating that landlord influencer does NOT have to be "removed," just that IF it's to be included, it shall be with the most updated information. https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101884506/even-the-wealthiest-nations-are-ill-prepared-for-a-hotter-planet 02:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is NOT complete. Anyone should refrain from editing this back. WalterWhite72 (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this "'leaving the reader off' with the LAST impression that this person is a landlord influencer" thing is about—it is standard to mention the most current information first, and then older statements. Surely you don't want us to write that "Kevin Paffrath (born January 28, 1992),[2] also known as Meet Kevin, was described in Curbed as a "landlord influencer". He is an American YouTuber, landlord, and real estate broker.", right?

Multiple people have explained edit warring to you, but your continued reverts are making it clear you are no longer engaging in good faith. You are at 5 reverts, out of an allowed 3. Please restore the status quo. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

WalterWhite72, I responded at your talk page about the rules regarding edit warring, and I urge you to self-revert.

Turning to the content here, I propose that part of the solution should simply be removing the 'landlord influencer' line from the lead. It's not a particularly helpful bit of info, and his notable occupations/roles are already listed in the lead sentence. It looks to have been added (though later modified) by the creator of this article, Victorzyang, in this edit which took place after the article was nominated for deletion and which had the edit summary "Added more citations that demonstrate notability.". Now, I think there's little reason to doubt Paffrath's notability, and less reason to include and highlight this one descriptor. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the value of the "landlord influencer" quote is that it is actually conveying information that is given both in Curbed and in the NYT source, which is that his landlord-related videos were a prominent part of his content. There are other hills I will die on first before the inclusion of the quote in the lead (for example, removing the highly promotional "social media star" wording), but I do think it is a useful inclusion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm wrong. I was in deep on the history of the page, and forgot that we have a section in the body of the article that the lead line summarizes. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not a discussion of an edit war.

Let me properly summarize this entire landlord discussion. Gorilla believes that a 2019 reference to landlord influencer is more salient than any other present-day reference.

Why Gorilla deems this particular reference has more merit than anything else, is very odd. This is also a political page. That raises questions.

Regardless, fairness should be applied. If one body reference can be summarized in the headline, then maybe all others should be as well. Maybe the headlines should include references to lawsuits, income, and more on the campaign.

But that then raises the logical next question of: what is most important to be in the LEAD section? For some reason Gorilla believes that “landlord influencer” should be, yet provides no recent evidence to backup this conclusion.

This means perhaps others should chime in with arguments that could be evaluated.

For example, when we review the landlord discussion above, gorilla mentions they are open to a consensus solution. Yet nobody closed that argument. The person arguing in that section had actually done much more thorough research than I even had. More people on this page seem to be in favor of removing landlord influencer from the lead.

Therefore, landlord influencer should be removed in favor of recent descriptors: financial and real estate educator seems appropriate. Or Financial educator and real estate investor. WalterWhite72 (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the ordering: then the campaign information should be ABOVE landlord influencer. WalterWhite72 (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my explanation. This is also a political page. That raises questions. Care to elaborate? As for the rest, see WP:BLUDGEON. Repeating the same arguments doesn't make your change more likely to be implemented. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

How about this. I have proposed a revised headline while making the revision of removing the information. Why don’t we just simplify the entire lead? WalterWhite72 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Everyone wins - it provides landlord, Real Estate investor, and Youtuber WalterWhite72 (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Forcing your preferred revision in via edit war is not consensus. Hopefully someone will tend to the AN/EW report shortly. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Gorilla what’s your response to the arguments made? I see you’ve touched on commentary, but not the arguments, such as 1. If influencer then all 2. Or none 3. Or simplify 4. And you have no recent evidence this landlord influencer item is relevant to today 5. Or respond to the other suggestions made above here

Let’s just put the red herrings to rest WalterWhite72 (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - maybe an experienced moderator can evaluate WalterWhite72 (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

So who resolves the dispute so we can do what’s right? WalterWhite72 (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

SQL, apparently. As has already been pointed out to you, the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for your changes, not on anyone here to argue for the existing version of the page. If you think that outside voices are needed, there are WP:BLPN and WP:NPOVN, though people are generally not super keen on rehashing arguments that have already been had there, and your POV-pushing may be scrutinized further. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Let’s be transparent here: 1. gorilla: suggesting that because SQL authorized an edit mute does not conclude this debate. 2. You have stated you’re open to a consensus. 3. The onus is on YOU to prevent the addition of new titles - why are you refusing this? Why are you refusing financial educator or analyst? 4. You have IGNORED my request above 5. You’ve IGNORED the argumentation in the closed discussion above

Now you’re hiding behind a reversion mute which provides ZERO evidence as to how an edit should be handled.

Please answer the questions above. WalterWhite72 (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have answered thoroughly and repeatedly. You have clearly not read WP:ONUS despite being linked to it multiple times. Feel free to seek outside input or actually make a policy-based argument; otherwise, I have said my piece here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I’ve read it and I believe you to be wrong - please answer what I’ve succinctly summarized for you, which you for the third time now have ignored. WalterWhite72 (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ballot name in lead

Paffrath's suit to change how his name is listed on the ballot is a trivial campaign issue and doesn't belong in the lead per WP:DUE and MOS:LEADREL. Schazjmd (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, not to mention that the source doesn't support the claim that a suit has been filed, but rather that Paffrath has said he would file suit. We also should not be describing Paffrath in wikivoice as a "social media star". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's filed - I imagine this can be sourced somehow through a court? https://twitter.com/realMeetKevin/status/1417638834733391877?s=20 Also, why is how a name appears on the ballot a trivial issue? Quite frankly, if the lawsuit is a success, Kevin Paffrath should be moved to Meet Kevin and Kevin Paffrath page should be abandoned, like Magic Johnson's. WalterWhite72 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Even if we could use a tweet as a source, all that supports is the same thing, which is that Paffrath says he filed a lawsuit. And it is absolutely a trivial campaign issue, with one single mention in an article about a broader topic. If significant coverage emerges, maybe it could be added. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec) We don't use primary/court documents in articles about living people. It's premature to talk about an article move. And you've made no argument for why the lead should mention the dispute. Did you read the pages that I linked to? I realize that you're a new editor and unfamiliar with many of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and standards, but that's why we tend to link things – so new editors can follow those links and learn how to work on this collaborative project. Schazjmd (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes - I just referenced the Fox 40 doc and I understand what you mean about not particularly saying filed yet. So if a media organization picks it up, we could bring this back. I agree.

The result will have consequences for the appearance of the name of the article, I believe. What do you think? WalterWhite72 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME for why it will not. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why not - maybe you could point it out? Given that "common names" are essentially someone's identity, which Kevin Paffrath is most well known as "Meet Kevin." Just like Magic Johnson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Johnson WalterWhite72 (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

References refer to him as Kevin Paffrath. Many also mention Meet Kevin but that's not what they call him. We use the common name--how sources commonly refer to the subject--as the article title. Schazjmd (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is... Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." Reliable sources seem to use "Kevin Paffrath" much more often than "Meet Kevin", mentioning that that is his channel name but then referring to him throughout as "Kevin Paffrath". To address your example, the same is not true of Magic Johnson, who is regularly referred to as Magic Johnson rather than Earvin Johnson. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2021

In the last paragraph of the page under "legal issues" where it says "In an efforts to bring..." please remove the 's' from the word 'efforts'. Cochlearmom (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

MrsSnoozyTurtle edits

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Paffrath's legal issues are relevant to the article, but hardly leadworthy given their prominence in RS. I'm not sure why you're adding them to the lead, unless you know of considerably more sourcing that gives them prominence (in which case you should add it).

Please see WP:ABOUTSELF for why information self-published by Paffrath is usable for statements of uncontroversial fact such as his DoB.

As for whether the page ought to be titled "Meet Kevin", this came up above. All of the sources refer to him as "Kevin Paffrath" and mention the nickname/channel name, but they don't refer to him as "Meet Kevin". And it is Paffrath, not the standalone channel, who is notable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw the notice at the BLP noticeboard and came here to look at the situation. In my opinion the "legal issues" are too trivial to mention in the lead. I think the first paragraph of the lead should include what is currently there plus the sentence about him being an "influence" since it is part of his notability, and the second paragraph of the lead should say he is a candidate in the coming election. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

RFC about article title

Should this article be moved from "Kevin Paffrath" (the name of the individual) to "Meet Kevin" (the YouTube channel)? MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support Since the notability of the article is largely related to the YouTube channel, I believe it should named as such. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. All of the sources in this article refer to Paffrath the individual, mentioning that he runs a YouTube channel by the name "Meet Kevin" but referring to him as Kevin Paffrath rather than "Meet Kevin". The channel itself is not sufficiently notable for a standalone article, though the person is (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination)). As a note, MrsSnoozyTurtle, this should probably be a requested move and not an RfC. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a biography of a human being who is now a candidate for governor of California. It is the person who is notable, not his YouTube channel. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Please withdraw, and reformat as a requested move. MrsSnoozyTurtle, as the nominator, you can withdraw at any time, but it would be particularly helpful to do so before too many people have commented. If this is to stay, then Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and whatever PAG says "If the reliable sources are about the person, use their name." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose In this case the Meet Kevin moniker refers to his name (would be different from say PewDiePie or Jacksepticeye). Now with ventures into stuff unrelated to Youtube it's pretty straighforward that the article should just be his name. Loganmac (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Please see WP:RFCNOT and use the WP:RM process for page renames. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• For clarity: the RfC tag was removed by Redrose64. It would be swell if an uninvolved editor (or an extra-bold involved one) could hat this section. Future discussion should be in a new section, possibly an RM. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable source tag

@Dervorguilla: Can you expand a bit on this edit summary, and why you feel the statement about owning 22 properties is potentially controversial? Paffrath has extensively described his real estate business and the properties they flip and rent on his YouTube channel, and that he operates a business that does so is supported by several other sources in this article. Why is the specific number potentially controversial? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Someone potentially could accuse Paffrath of embellishing. (Maybe there really ‘are other owners’ [plural] as well??) It sounds like nobody's done so yet, though. I can accordingly delete that tag. –Dervorguilla (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

NOTNEWS

We really need to stop including every single thing about Paffrath's participation in the gubernatorial recall race that news organizations are willing to print, such as that Paffrath challenged Newsom to a debate. Please see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10Y.

@WalterWhite72: The same applies results of individual polls. If there is a source that gives a broad overview of all polling in this space, we could perhaps include that, but including one-off poll results puts us at risk of misrepresenting how Paffrath is doing in this race. The poll in which Paffrath achieved 27% support has been described as a "shock poll" for being so far afield of other polls, and its methodology has been questioned; I note that you have not included the poll in which Paffrath achieved 1% support... (Full disclosure, I have just finished putting together an ANI complaint about this editor's extensive promotional editing on this page). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

DUI arrest bring hidden

Paffrath was arrested for DUI in May 2022 in Hillsborough County, Florida. This is public information. 2600:1011:B0D1:DFB0:4933:F63D:EE65:37FE (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Has it garnered any attention in the media or other reliable sources? Dumuzid (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPCRIME for relevant guidance. Unless it is covered in a reliable, secondary source it should not be included here. Arrest records and especially mugshot websites are not sufficient sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Non-working ref.

The first reference on the page calls https://www.youtube.com/user/MeetKevin/about, which is not a working link. It is being called from WikiData, and I can't tell here or there how to fix it. BD2412 T 17:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

On further investigation, the problem is not with Wikidata, but with Template:Infobox YouTube personality, which was generating bad external links in a number of articles. This has now been fixed. BD2412 T 18:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)