Talk:John Stutz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Intent

I had originally placed the beginning of a bio in this article, but it was marked for speedy deletion before I had time to barely add anything. Soon thereafter, it was moved. I am happy to abide by the decisions of the admins, but I do feel that this article has relevance and is supported by other similar articles in both content and relevance such as Bill Dobbins and each of the biographical articles linked to from List of female fitness & figure competitors and List of female bodybuilders. With a forthcoming book and additional publication credits, plus widespread acceptance in this industry, I think this article should be considered for the main space.

In light of other support, I have taken the liberty to replace the original [incomplete] bio in an attempt to expand the stub. I do hope this is not considered an unfriendly attempt to subvert the system. More biographical information is coming. John Stutz 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While you may be notable, it's generally not a good idea to write about yourself, let somebody else do it for you if they think you're notable enough. --Rory096_(block) 20:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the comment "in light of other support". Are you (John Stutz) claiming that there are people clamoring for a Wikipedia bio about you? And I'm sorry to disagree, but you *are* subverting the system (see below).

There seemed to me to be at least one or two people who saw the deletion and posted a stub requesting the article be filled in. I misunderstood the meaning of these notations, which appear to have very specific meaning to regular contributors, but are a bit cryptic to novice (first-time) contributors. I filled in the small amount of information that had been deleted, along with a note in the discussion page, which politely asked for forgiveness in the event I was breaking a rule.

Another thing - the comparison with Bill Dobbins is reasonable, but how are the Wikipedia entries on various female bodybuilders relevant here? They are athletes, and you are a photographer. I'm not saying that you aren't notable enough for an entry, but it's a bad comparison.

There was no comparison to female bodybuilders. I simply stated relevance. Meaning that this short bio was likely relevant to the community of individuals who take an interest in these other individuals, or the fitness industry overall.John Stutz 09:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In any case, it looks like you need to read up on Wikipedia policy. I refer you to the policy on Vanity, and particularly the guideline on autobiography. I think the autobiography guideline makes it quite clear that you should not be doing this. A short summary: the wrong approach is to say "I'm important, so I'm going to tell everyone how important I am"; the right approach is to let others who recognize your importance write about you.

Extremely true. As a new poster, there are volumes upon volumes of information on Wikipedia policy, etiquette, and syntax. It's a daunting process to be innagurated into. The original purpose of this short bio was to introduce others who read my newsletter to the wonderful tool of this web site. After speaking with a friend who convinced me it would be a nice idea to put up a small page, I thought I would give it a try. The barrier to entry in this community seems pretty high and I doubt most are ready for the time commitment it takes to learn the ins and outs. This includes myself. I certainly ought to investigate further before making any more additions to the site.John Stutz 09:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Lest you get the wrong idea - I've seen some of your work, and I think you probably merit an entry here. But please - try to work within the system; there's no reason to think that an exception should be made for you. fbb_fan 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please dont delete this

I have been scouring the web looking for more content on male and female fitness art. I've seen some of John's work but I am interesteded in fitess photography in general. Searches here in the wiki for other photographers (David Ford, David Fish, and Skip Faulkner) have resulted in non-hits or incorrect information. Searches on Google have provided some info, it is nice to see something here at Wikipedia.

Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a replacement for Google, though. It's an encyclopedia, not a search engine. fbb_fan 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The post above was made by User:Huper, who has only posted to this page since registering [1]. Likely sockpuppet. porges 22:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, I attempted to post an article about a Christopher Danek (Chris Danek) a poker player and software engineer. But that article was deleted :-/

That may be, but at present, there is only one entry in the User contributions for Huper. In any case, my objection from before still stands - we're building an encyclopedia here, not a search engine. fbb_fan 02:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do as you will

This article was not intended to be promotional or an attempt to convince people that I an famous. Among the others in the industry who are currently noted within this site, I thought I might put in a small article upon the recommendation of a friend. I understand this is in violation of site policy and I will not be posting any more autobiographical information. Nor will I take up any cause to promote the inclusion of this article in the site.

It seems to me that the inclusion of this meager amount of information is not the crux of this dispute, rather it was the fact that I submitted it that seems to be the most contentuous point (I suspect, though, I may not have been the first to be guilty of this). I will recommend this article be deleted.

Based on the tone of response I have seen, I will also recommend that there might be better ways to communicate site policy to well intentioned novice users. One never knows how much influence these people may have on others, nor how much they may contribute to the project in the future. Wikipedia is among the most valuable resources on the web, and I was about to assert that fact to a large audience of mine, suggesting that they take up the cause and become active contributors. However, I think this may not be a wise idea anymore.

John Stutz 09:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to understand that we do have many (many) people who do create fake articles or self-promotional articles when they aren't merited. This is why it is considered a faux pas to write about yourself. If your status deserves an article of its own, be sure that one will be written some time in the future (just take a look how many articles we have at the moment!). In the meantime, it is best to keep it to your user page. Don't let this one small instance discourage you, take it as a lesson and move on, there are plenty more articles out there waiting to be written :) porges 09:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)