Talk:Chris Stuckmann

Requested move 17 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Submitted request on nom's behalf. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Draft:Chris Stuckmann → Chris Stuckmann – This article is ready to be published. ZodsSnappedNeck (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC) |talk=yes

• Comment. No, it still needs improvement. There are currently way too many citations from self-published sources and social networking websites (see WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:SOCIALMEDIA). Without any better reliable sources, this would qualify as a candidate for deletion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – can someone explain where the license for the photo comes from, or is this a copyvio? Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose — Article is not ready for main space. I highly recommend you check out the Articles for Creation project, a wonderful resource for new users and IP editors who want to develop the article and have a experienced user review it before it goes into the main space. I have been in the project for a while, and It is a wonderful resource. Best of luck, Cheers. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 03:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment why aren't you using {{subst:submit}} ? -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notability

I came across this via another account. In any case, I thought that it might be good to explain why the current draft doesn't establish notability guidelines.

Ultimately it's because none of the sources establish notability, as the amount of views or followers on YouTube (or any social media website) do not count towards notability on here. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Publishing work also doesn't give notability, as putting out work by itself is not inherently notable on Wikipedia given the relative ease of publication nowadays. Nor does being the focus of a meme give automatic notability, especially given that many memes have an extremely short shelf life. Being a Tomatometer critic also doesn't give notability. That just means that for however long his reviews are posted on the site, Stuckmann's reviews could be used as a RS - however being a RS does not make one automatically notable.

None of the sources on the article can establish notability. Primary sources (things written by Stuckmann or someone affiliated with him) cannot establish notability. These should be used extremely sparingly. Social media links should be avoided except in very specific circumstances, like directly quoting someone - even then that should be used sparingly since most activity on social media is of little importance to Wikipedia. You also should not hotlink within the article. Not only can this be seen as possibly promotional, but in general there's not really any true need to do this - especially given that things like hashtags can change meaning. This might seem silly given the specific nature of the hashtag, but it does happen. You should also avoid linking to Goodreads, as almost anyone can edit the book listings on that website and anyone can add a review. If you want to show that the book exists, WebCat is the best place to link to, although hotlinking within the article should be avoided.

What you need to establish notability are sources like news articles or reviews of his work in media outlets that would be considered WP:RS on Wikipedia. This is extremely difficult to do on Wikipedia given that very few YouTubers and creative professionals in general gain enough of the type of coverage to pass notability guidelines, if they even get a little. It's so difficult to pass GNG that I'd like to hold up two examples of notable YouTubers. PewDiePie actually failed notability guidelines until 2013, long after he'd passed the million subscriber mark, and GameGrump's Dan Avidan's article was almost deleted this year, despite GameGrumps being extremely well known and subscribed to. It's just that difficult to pass GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember the long debates over Avidan's notability. But anyway, in terms of Stuckmann passing WP:GNG, I would like to point out that, while I agree with your points, this draft currently contains citations to sources like Akron Beacon Journal, WKYC.com, Uproxx, and Moviepilot. Additionally, while Stuckmann is mentioned essentially only in passing in some of the sources, such as from Inquisitr and The Hollywood Reporter, the aforementioned sources discuss Stuckmann substantially, or in the case of the shorter articles, relatively substantially. I agree that a YouTube account and some channel statistics on Socialblade aren't enough to establish notability, but I think that Stuckmann's is worthy of being an article in its current state at the time that I'm writing this, despite it being a stub. –Matthew - (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Jehova's Witnesses

There was a part here about him coming out as an ex JW. That part is now deleted and the page is semi-protected. All this done without adding anything here about why. Is the person doing that edit an JW?188.151.123.146 (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The information was not reliably sourced. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

But, these sources are from the guy's official social media pages with some other YouTuber, that he was interview from his early years, including how when Chris got into film reviewing; as well from one of his YouTube videos has announced of making a Autobiography, in the near-future. So, if his autobiographical novel released, someone will gonna to added here. Chad The Goatman (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Apart from basic facts we are not interested in what he says about himself but what independent reliable sources say about him, ikv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

So the man himself talking at length about his own experience isn't a reliable source - but if some website or magazine publishes, say, an interview with him where he says the exact same thing then it suddenly becomes a reliable source? I have trouble understanding the logic here. 89.64.116.219 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The logic is this is not facebook, it's an encyclopaedia. Reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines do try to confirm stories and print retractions if errors are found while unreliable sources do not check stories or print retractions. There is also the issue that Wikipedia is only interested in what reliable sources say about the subject not what the subject spouts about himself on his own channel and unreliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Now we have three sources - apparently reliable - all of which quote the video directly. So it's exactly as I said - information from the horse's mouth ("spouting", as you put it) isn't good enough, but when a third party reprints it, it becomes acceptable. Even though it's the same information from the same source, except referenced indirectly. 89.64.116.219 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You could add: "In January 2021, while discussing being a former Jehovah's Witness, Stuckmann came out as pansexual." --143.176.30.65 (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done Seagull123 Φ 13:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Home features"

In the § Feature films section, it says his films Phenomenon Field and The Woods are "home features". There is no home feature Wikipedia article, and searching for "home feature" film via Google does not define "home feature". (Only suggests the A Place Called Home feature film, etc.) The editor(s) who added the phrase, attempted to clarify that, even though Stuckmann was director of the feature-length films I mentioned above, these were not commercial cinematic releases, and therefore Shelby Oaks is his directorial debut. So, I get the goal, but so long as neither Wikipedia nor Google can tell readers what "home feature" is, can someone with more film knowledge than I have change the phrase into something more clear/mainstream? Thanks. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:77AD:404C:2511:9A17 (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)