Talk:Thomas Sanders (entertainer)

Sources Issue

There are a lot of self-published sources however. 19:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't notice any Primary Sources in the sources list (at least as I understand them). I vote to remove the primary sources issue. 04:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frapsity (talk • contribs)

Birth year

I've mistaken his birth year, f'real, he was born in 1989. Basteperk (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Undoing recent changes

Some of the rewording was okay, but trimmed out relevant data that made the context more difficult to understand, putting the article at risk of not establishing notability as it should and therefore being deleted in the AfD it's going through right now. Some of the references were trimmed out too, which should never be done without a good reason. On the other hand, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the introduction must be a summary of the whole article. That is, it must be able to stand on its own as a "mini version" of the article. To do so, all the relevant data must be present on the introduction. That means it's crucial for the awards references to appear there as it's crucial to establish Sanders is a notable Viner/Youtuber, and the same goes for his theatre and television career, for the same reasons..

About the text of the article, I decided not using the word "stagnant", as references have proven me that that was wrong. Sanders' account was already growing way before the end of Vine was announced. It was growing already since 2015. That's why the references from the internet archive are shown, as they feature how many followers the account had on different precise dates, and that gives a more precise information of how it was growing instead of just saying "stagnant" which is a too vague term and not completely true.--Manbemel (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2018

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: Moved to Thomas Sanders (entertainer). (closed by page mover) Simplexity22 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Thomas Sanders (creator) → ? – The disambiguator "creator" does not seem to be a good one. We need an alternative one such as Thomas Sanders (actor), Thomas Sanders (singer), or Thomas Sanders (YouTuber). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Move to Thomas Sanders (actor) Truth is I didn't like the "creator" either. I would go for "actor", as that's his main occupation and summarizes all the fields he's performed in: Vine, YouTube, musical theatre and television, and also anything else that might come in the future.--Manbemel (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • While that may be true, to the average person he isn't perceived as an actor, more as an internet personality. --16:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frapsity (talk • contribs)
    • But "internet personality" is too long for a disambiguation and not an occupation in itself. "YouTuber", even though it would be fine as it's his most recent main medium, would leave Vine out, which was his main medium before and the one that rose him to fame, and the alternative "Viner" that could also be an option, would also leave YouTube out. "actor" is the more appropriate in my opinion as it covers both. Redirects could be created later with the rest of the individual options.--Manbemel (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Move to anything Thomas Sanders (YouTuber) will do. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Thomas Sanders (YouTuber) --16:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frapsity (talk • contribs)
• "Thomas Sanders (entertainer)" might work. Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I like this one too. Might go for this one. Also "comedian" would be a good option.--Manbemel (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think "Entertainer" most encompases what he does while still keeping it true to what the general public views him as. --Frapsity (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to Thomas Sanders (entertainer) following consensus.--Manbemel (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• I've seen (media personality) used as a disambiguation (I can't remember which articles), which could work. {User talk:Starklinson) —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't like this one, for the same reason I don't like "internet personality", it's not an occupation in itself and it's too long for a dissambiguation having shorter options in consideration. In this case, it would also be a little bit vague in my opinion, which is the same problem we had with "creator".--Manbemel (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2018 (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.

Fancruft template

As established in WP:MTR, in this section, points 6 and 7, the fancruft template, as any other templates based on opinion, requires consensus to be kept, and it is required to open a discussion in the talk page of the article to decide wether it stays or it goes. If no consensus is reached, it has to be removed.

• Remove template: I have trimmed some of the information of the article, and I think the template is no longer applicable. Remember that all verifiable material through reliable sources can and should stay, as judging the merits of an article purely on quantity is a direct violation of WP:NOTPAPER. As long as the content is verifiable, in context and presented neutrally, it can stay in the article. Notability is only required for the topic of the article as a whole, and notability has already been established. The tone in the article has remained constantly neutral. You won't find any praises or criticism in the prose except the ones that have been done by third unrelated parties in independent reliable sources.--Manbemel (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: @Adog: added the template. I'm not one to use this specific template, but it at least touches on the problems in this article: poor sources, trivia, undue detail, soapboxing. If there are no WP:COI problems here, there certainly seem to be advocacy problems of some sort. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to make it clear. I have no connection or relation of any kind with the subject of the article, and I personally find this suggestion offensive, as I've always tried to maintain neutrality in everything I've entered here. Yes, I admit I'm interested in the subject and will not hide it, since there's no policy forbidding that. I've been in Wikipedia, with varying degrees of participation, ever since 2006, and I don't think that I'm better or worse than anybody else because of that, but before anything else, I have a compromise with Wikipedia and its principles. If something bad about the subject had to be placed in the article and it was covered by reliable sources, you can bet I would be the first in line to include it. Back to the article, the criticism paragraph in the theater section was placed precisely as a means to establish neutrality, as it included both positive and negative comments by unrelated critics about his work in the most balanced way the sources could allow. I have no problem with removing that section if it truly is not considered appropriate, as we all can make mistakes, but the qualifier "gross" is out of place.--Manbemel (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Theater

I'm concerned by the comments above and the recent back and forth over the poorly sourced information in the Theater. I think more attention should be put on the requirements of WP:BLP: high quality sources, close adherence to content policy, and burden of inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

I just looked over the first 20 sources. There are many sources by him, many more that are primary. While I'm not contesting his notability, which I assume is established by the awards, I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage. Could someone point out any sources in the article that contain in-depth coverage? --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Some of the following (can't find the way to tabulate them properly) are present on the article, others were mentioned in the deletion discussion of last year.--Manbemel (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9p2UlQunxI
http://www.mtv.com/news/2507946/thomas-sanders-vine-interview/
https://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/11/the-ultimate-storytime-tour-with-vine-star-thomas-sanders/21448342/?guccounter=1
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/28/media/vine-shut-down-stars-next-plans/index.html
https://www.inquisitr.com/3926406/thomas-sanders-disney-channel-sitcom/
https://www.wuft.org/news/2015/05/22/vine-makes-celebrity-out-of-local-actor/
https://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/11/how-vine-launched-thomas-sanders-comedic-career/21448348/
https://www.smash.com/guy-surprises-random-strangers-hilariously-narrates-lives/
http://mediakix.com/2015/03/vine-stars-top-breakout-channels/#gs.J3MiC94
https://shortyawards.com/9th/thomassanders

None of those are what I'm asking for. Interviews don't count, as they are primary sources. News briefs, announcements, etc are slightly better, but still are not in-depth coverage.

This is a huge problem. If we cannot agree on what are and are not the type of quality sources that BLP requires, then I don't see how we can make any progress on anything else.

If you want to point out one of two that you think are the very best of the bunch, I'm happy to go into detail. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

In this one, the interview itself doesn't count in the sense that what the interviewee says is primary source, but the introduction written by the journalist is a secondary source, per WP:INTERVIEW (only an essay, but well grounded on policy). this other one has in-depth coverage, at least up to 2015 when it was written.--Manbemel (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Introductions to interviews are rarely independently written. Usually the interviewee or their publicist provides copy, which the publisher then uses as a basis for the introduction.

For the case of the MTV ref, it's five sentences that do nothing other than provide minimal information on why he's noteworthy. I fail to see how that's in-depth.

Yes, the WUFT ref is one of the better ones. It's "local resident becomes famous" coverage, giving a large portion to information about his fans. There's little depth to it, but it does give some history in the local theater and his success on Vine. It's not bad for this type of coverage, but it's still only local coverage.

If that's the best there is, then it's pretty near impossible to write a neutral encyclopedia article about him because there is simply not enough coverage to do so. Relying on primary and promotional sources gives something that's unsuitable for an encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Unless we're overlooking better sources or that new ones can be found, everything in the article should be trimmed similarly to the Theater section.

Assuming everything in the lede is duplicated in the article, the lede should be trimmed substantially.

Anything sourced only by primary or non-independent sources should be considered for trimming, especially if unrelated to his notability. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing and Media Relevance

I am a communication major in college. Through my research and experiences in class, I have found that the definition of an expert has been constantly changing. I was concerned when I saw the warning on this page saying that this is an unbiased and unfinished source. I looked at the sources that the fan used and most of them came from either the videos themselves or IMDB. I consider the videos as a reliable source because it is content that is put onto the web that helps contextualize the story and influence of this entertainer. I recognize the need for there to not be original research, but I think this figure is a person who is relevant now. It would be more beneficial to have a page on him now than to wait for there to be peer-reviewed articles on his influence on the media. Thomas seems to be a person who is very concerned about putting all information and videos in the right context. I would argue that his inclusion on the Wikipedia platform should be looked at in a media studies context because of his influence on multiple social media platforms. He also takes care to raise awareness for minority groups such as the lgbtqa+ community, communities of people with autism, and communities of people with mental illness. He especially expresses diversity in the team he cultivates to create the videos. A notable member of the team is his non-binary friend Joan who puts a lot of creative work into the videos as well. The influence that Thomas Sanders has in media studies and representation makes his inclusion on Wikipedia a crucial addition to the site. I believe the content on the page is sufficiently neutral and aligns with the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia. I am interested in hearing any concerns or questions that stem from my argument. --Sophierydin33 (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Made this article a bit more encyclopedic.

I took out a good chunk of the article. Some was written by a fan and seemed too personal. I kept the more relevant parts, but some didn’t seem necessary. The long description of Sanders Sides may have been better suited for the corresponding article. I tried to only get rid of the unnecessary parts. Hope it looks better now. The Council of Seraphim (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)