Talk:Stinson Hunter

Why is this person deserving such a huge section on wikipedia?
Why is this person deserving such a huge section on wikipedia? The poor spelling and grammar etc, gives the impression that it's individuals friends who are generally writing this. Also how is this individual anymore deserving than any of 1000s of other people on YouTube making videos etc. I see arguments that they're news worthy, but no more than a Big Brother/X-factor celebrity etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.41 (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this page would be better deleted, and Stinson Hunter be covered within a page about the documentory, rather than a dedicated page just for him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.41 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He has had media coverage before and after the documentary, the reason he got the documentary was because he was already getting coverage, so he qualifies for an article via WP:GNG all because you blanked his article does not make him non-notable. GuzzyG (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I never blanked the article. I took out the poorly written, unreferenced crap, to tidy the article up. It sounded liked something written by a child. Also, check my talk page - I sorted things out with the editor who undid the changes and and he agreed I was right. Stinson is known for making YouTube videos of people interested in sex with underage kids. He's not a journalist, a director, or anything else any of his fans want to call him, anymore than you or I am. He's no more notable than a Big brother celebrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.182.229 (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Over a year later and the article is still only 2 sentences. Someone please nomdel this. 109.145.151.143 (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The comment "written by a child" should not be used - it is degrading on the applied context.

Criminal Offences & Bias
Details of his extensive offences have been omitted. I made a change (one of several over time) and each time Wikipedia bullies delete the comments. The article is highly biased. Stinson served 10 years in prison for arson against a school. That is relevant and it is not even mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.41.13 (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * '''His statement about the police having wives and sisters too is a variation of prison lore.
 * What people overlook is that evidence acquired by vigilantism can often be inadmissable, which is essentially the reason why charges are dropped and is like handing the guilty a "get out of jail free" card.' Nocebotic (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Very odd whitewashing of page
This person is, first and foremost, a vigilante. The page formerly made no mention of this, and also appeared to paint him in a very positive light. I suspect this page has been edited by fans or possibly Stinson himself. The very first news article I came to was not linked from the page, presumably because it calls him a vigilante in the headline. It's crucial that this isn't whitewashed again.Wikiditm (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)