Talk:Chuggaaconroy

Notes on the Draft
To the person who reviews the draft, I wanted to write a few comments on what the draft consists of, what has changed from the original article, and the sources on the article. First off, this was a draft I’ve been working on for several months and was based on the original Chuggaaconroy article which got deleted due to there not being a case for his notability, despite the fact that he had two articles which significantly covered him from Wired and the New York Times (as in, at least 100 words or more), among other sources. Following the WP:BASIC criteria and WP:WEB, I rewrote most of the article from scratch with new and previously unused sources. Here are my comments:

1: The Wired, New York Times, The Atlantic, The Irish Times, and The Independent are the main sources that support his notability. While the latter three are relatively brief, when combined with the extensive Wired article and the decently significant NY Times article, they should be enough to establish significant coverage. Also, sources from Sequart, Mashable, Reporter and an article from the University of Brasilia also give him significant coverage along with other sources. These should establish his notability as a Let’s Player who makes informative gaming walkthroughs on Nintendo games, under WP:WEB. As for sources from his videos I made sure to follow WP:VIDEOLINK - “Self-published videos may be used as sources of information about their creator if they meet the requirements seen at restrictions on using self-published sources.”

2: In lieu of the Videography section which was repeatedly deleted from the original article, I put a paragraph listing the games he has made videos of which have either received moderate coverage from reliable sources or were used for illustrative purposes, à la TheRadBrad.

3: One source that might be questionable is the Zelda Universe source which talks about Chuggaaconroy’s YouTube suspension in July of 2010. I couldn’t find any consensus on whether or not the source was reliable to use, and it seems that the site might not be independent of him (as he has had his walkthroughs used on the website before), but seeing as how the article seems mostly well-written and isn’t an inaccurate fact (it genuinely did happen to him, and he had talked about it in an interview here), perhaps this source can be used only to verify this fact. I can write that Zelda Universe is an affiliate of him, although he isn't an official member of the website.

But anyway, I believe this draft should at the very least give him notability as a well-known YouTube Let’s Player.


 * , Before the reviewers accept or decline this draft, I would like to ask you a straightforward question. Have you updated this draft so that we can review this AfC submission? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have spent the past two months (since May 2021) editing the draft. When moved the article from mainspace into draftspace, he left the "This article needs to be updated" banner on it, and I neglected to remove the banner before submitting the draft - my mistake. However, the Chuggaaconroy draft is significantly different from the original article which was deleted, as I highlighted already in my explanation here. Sorry I didn't see this message, I had to take a sabbatical to finish an important school assignment after I submitted this draft. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is substantially different from the original article which was deleted in March 2021, both in terms of new information and sourcing. While I already touched on these points in my first response on the Talk Page, I'll restate some of these points here.

First off, the original article never contained any sort of explanation on the content or style of his videos, specifically his Nintendo-based Let's Play gaming videos where he generally showcases every aspect of the game including every boss battle and sidequest available. This new article clearly adds such information about his videos as demonstrated in the "Commentary and Video Style" sub-section, and is important for distinguishing his videos from other run-of-the-mill YouTube gaming personalities. I also added a new Reception section initially to place all the sources which have mentioned his subscriber and view count (making sure to only use reliable sources as opposed to a database like Social Blade), but later on to add some opinions that third-party sources have said about his content. This was also never mentioned in the original article as well. The other new additions includes the "Other Works" section (his work on Did You Know Gaming, collab with YouTuber "TheJWittz"), and a sub-section for The Runaway Guys, his secondary channel which had a draft that was declined numerous times before; I merged part of its contents into this page.

Second off, I added new sources such as ones from Sequart, Mashable, Reporter, Softonic, Observer-Reporter, Examiner.net (not to be confused with the unreliable source Examiner.com) and Nintendo Life - all of which were previously unused in the article before and most of which cover him in at least 100 words. As aforementioned on the Talk Page, I also added a brief paragraph listing the games he has made videos of which have either received moderate coverage from reliable sources or were used for illustrative purposes, akin to TheRadBrad's article. This was to demonstrate proof that he is indeed a YouTuber who makes gaming videos on Nintendo titles, and to replace the Videography section which was repeatedly deleted numerous times.

Finally, I deleted many of the unreliable sources on his Personal Life section, including several YouTube videos which weren't self-published sources from Chuggaaconroy himself. I also added information about his involvement with Starmen.net, an EarthBound internet forum he browsed as a teenager, along with two sources from reliable outlets unused in the original article. Also making sure to follow WP:BLP, I made sure to remove self-published sources where he talks about his autism, as it's a potentially controversial claim that hasn't been brought up in secondary reliable sources. I also added a Tweet from him about his birthday, following the guidelines for self-published sources.

You may argue that these sources don't establish his notability well enough, but to say that the article isn't substantially different from the original version is a bit dishonest. I rewrote a majority of the article from scratch and only kept a few sentences from previous versions of the article. If you want to remove this article, I suggest you do so at Articles for Deletion once more. However, seeing as how his article for Wired significantly covers him and I made sure to follow WP:WEB and WP:BASIC, this article at the least is above bare notability.

P.S. While I'm not the original creator of this article, I was the one who substantially edited the draft since late May 2021.

PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I had declined this Draft but another editor decided to move it to MainSpace anyway because they had a different opinon - which makes me wonder why they didn't just move it themselves in that case. In my opinion, this article needs significant cleanup and a change in tone away from fancruft. In my opinion and due to the lesser rigour by which references may be used to establish criteria for BLP articles (e.g. an interview where the person talking about themselves is an acceptable reference and not treated as a Primary source because ... well ... it appears in the NYT) there are sufficient references to establish notabilty. I only have problems with the content/style/tone. I've tagged the article as such.  HighKing++ 15:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How exactly is the article "fancruft?" It's less than 2000 words and doesn't go into overly specific detail on one particular topic. The only part of the article that might qualify for it is the brief paragraph of the games he's played in videos. As aforementioned (like five times), it served as a replacement for the Videography section on one of the previous versions of the article (which was an extreme example of fancruft in retrospect, and ironically my paragraph was meant to eliminate that). It might be a wall of blue (and admittedly the Animal Crossing references are weak), but some of the games he's played that has received coverage can still be kept to verify that his content is oriented around Nintendo video games; if not then at the very least it can be combined with the previous paragraphs. If the article were plastered with excessive detail about the memes and inside jokes from his videos (like how Cr1TiKaL's article was for a while), then maybe I could see where you're coming from. But the article doesn't focus on that nor any topic that only fans would care about. For the "Commentary" section, it's definitely useful for an Internet historian wanting to research the history of Let's Plays and differentiate between various styles of the genre. And anyway, I already messaged him to read the draft prior to submitting it (just to ask if I should even bother working on the article at that point), and he thought that the wording and tone of the article was okay. As for your tag, I checked the references once more and only identified these as primary sources:
 * Interview With Chuggaaconroy/The Runaway Guys
 * EarthBound Trailer Video (SPS)
 * Sequart article (questionable?)
 * Birthday Tweet (confirms his birthday, SPS)
 * So out of the 40 sources used, less than a quarter of them are primary sources (i.e. sources with little to no synthesis or analysis of his own statements) and those ones still contain relevant information to include. The rest of the article contains sources which actually take things he's stated and reinterpreted them in a different context, making them secondary. I may not be a Wikipedia expert, but that isn't nearly enough to warrant a "Primary Sources" tag. PantheonRadiance (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing. You seem to think that "Primary Sources" are only those directly published by this person and if that isn't the case, the source is automatically good. But there's a difference between sources used to support facts within an article and those used to establish notability. If you're using sources to establish facts, sure you can use quotes from the person that have been published in a magazine although if someone then disputes those "facts" they might be tagged/flagged. If you have a publication "interview" the person (without any comment/opinion/investigation/analysis by the journalist or anyone else on what has been said) then that is still a Primary source (of the information) and is not "Independent" content (which is also a factor). So when you go through the references in this article - most are Primary and not Independent (all the info originates directly from this person).
 * When I say most of this is "fancruft", it is because the article strays into excessive "peacock" descriptions and includes information that hasn't anything to do with his purported notability. For example, there is zero need for the section "Commentary and Video Style" and it is unnecessary. I've no idea what state the article was in before your edits, but it should be edited down further to provide a more factual encyclopedic tone. There are a *lot* of unattributed statements and adjectives. For example, which source describes his as a "prominent" Let's Player? Who says he is "best known" for his "comprehensive" video walkthroughs? Who is Stephen Georg and why is he even mentioned in his "Personal Life" section? Where is the reference attributing the growth of his channel to YouTube recommendations? If you can't support this from references, then you're deciding on and controlling the narrative and that is unencyclopedic and synthesis.  HighKing++ 13:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Emile's apology
This should be added to the article 209.93.242.250 (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * We can't add anything one way or the other without a reliable source to back it up. Game4brains (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove sexual assault categories
Nothing related to sexual assault is mentioned in the article. Besides, those categories are not for people biographies. 209.93.242.250 (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Categories as unsourced (Special:Diff/1199198156). Best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 11:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

To all those wondering, "where's the mention of the allegations?"
Unless the allegations are reported in a reliable source to back then up, they can't be included here. It's a bit like Boyinaband, who also has none of his allegations mentioned on his article for the same reason. 209.93.242.250 (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

TRG Hiatus Documentation
I am aware that we have held off discussion on recent events due to citation issues. At this stage is ProtonJon’s twitter statement announcing that the TheRunawayGuys would be on indefinite hiatus sufficient to have some degree of mention even if it’s just “following extended contraversy TheRunaway Guys announced they would be on indefinite hiatus”? I recognize that tweets aren’t generally reliable but this is a first hand account and an official statement by the group. MystNinja (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is crucial information that should be mentioned and doesn't need a secondary source. Raymond1922 (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * After reviewing TWITTER
 * it would appear that citing this tweet purely in the context of TRG’s hiatus is acceptable. It cannot on Chugga’s hiatus as no member of TRG can speak to that for the purpose of citation. Later I will be making an update later today with limited scope only to what the post can defin attest to. I will check for community confirmation before proceeding MystNinja (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Twitter is filled with hoaxes and bad-faith posters, do not use this source to make statements about controversies on this page. We can still refer to TRG in the present tense unless they split up officially. --209.93.85.55 (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Except this Twitter post is from a member of TRG making an official statement on the future of the group. This isn't a random person speculating about the group. Game4brains (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)