Talk:Redeemed Zoomer

Meeting the #2 option criteria inquiry

Hello @SafariScribe,

I came across this article in draft, and saw that there was flagged Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers

I looked at the #2 option which reads: The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

My question is, considering Redeemed Zoomer has a Youtube channel of over 562k subscribers (among other social outlets), and a lot of his YouTube videos follow a format of "something explained in X minutes" which are pretty significant/unique contributions Christian entertainment (among other materials/format he does)... does this not meet that criteria? If it does meet such, is it just a matter of referencing it in the article's content.

(Also, I am aware of other considerations regarding bios on living persons and having those necessary citations. I will look into that area as well.)

Thank you in advance for your help and insight here! :) ReformedMandalorian (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Adding other reviewers I know (see previous topic)

Hello @Dan_arndt and @Hey_man_im_josh!

I am taking a look at this draft article. The user SafariScribe tagged the article with the Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. I left a topic asking for his opinion, and figured I would also ask some recent reviewers I have interacted with to also take a look at this.

Basically, I am trying to see if this article's subject would meet that #2 option "The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."

Thanks :) ReformedMandalorian (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there @ReformedMandalorian. I am an AFC reviewer and I noticed this draft, cleaned it up to remove unverified claims (and add stronger sourcing to demonstrate the subject's notability; this is a pass of WP:GNG with independent, reliable source WP:SIGCOV in Christianity Today and Religion News Service) and moved it to mainspace. Thanks for working on it! Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

(Awesome, thank you @Dclemens1971!) ReformedMandalorian (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Redeemed Zoomer December 2023.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Spouse name (infobox) editing conflict

Hey, so there seems to be users changing the spouse name. The maiden name is Marburger and the new married name is Ackerman. Which one is "supposed" to be used in the infobox? (The article's text does make mention of her maiden name when they had met, and mention they later married.)

Tagging for awareness: @SafariScribe @Dan arndt @Dclemens1971 ReformedMandalorian (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox person the "spouse" entry should be the article title of the spouse (not applicable here) or the person's common name as supported by reliable sources. It's often customary for the infobox spouse entry to use a wife's maiden name; see the spouses of George Washington or Albert Einstein. As long as there's a valid source in the article that supports the name I think either is fine here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

(Okay thanks!) ReformedMandalorian (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• I concur with Dclemens1971's comments - infobox should have maiden name and if possible, date of marriage (if known). 02:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Redeemed Zoomer.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• RedeemedZoomer.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

About the picture and speedy deletion.

If we put it up for speedy deletion what picture do we use? 31.50.51.246 (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

You need a picture that has been appropriately licensed by the creator of the picture. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

There exists a public domain illustration of Redeemed Zoomer on Wikimedia commons. How about using that if an appropriately licensed photo isn't available? JoeBugMan (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the discussion @JoeBugMan. For other users' reference, the file in question is here. No objection to inclusion but I know that user-generated portraits can be controversial for use with BLPs so interested in others' thoughts. Courtesy ping to @130.209.117.118, who objected to the use of this image. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Redeemed Zoomer Appearance.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Is mentioning Alex O'Conner relevant?

I'm not sure this section is relevant to the article:

" He has faced criticism for a video answering arguments for atheism, which drew responses from several atheist YouTubers who offered rebuttals. Notably, Alex O'Connor (formerly known online as Cosmic Skeptic) made a video rebutting Ackerman."

If you're familiar with theology/philosophy content on YouTube, if you are popular enough, EVERY video you make addressing opposing views is bound to "face criticism" and "draw responses" from opposing sides who make their own rebuttal videos. I just don't know why this should be mentioned. 73.58.41.237 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Please mention that you opened a talk page thread in the edit summary next time. I initially reverted your change because I thought it was unexplained. Warudo (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

As for the removal itself, I'll agree that we need some kind of WP:secondary source to justify that Alex O'Connor's video was "notable" and therefore worth mentioning. Warudo (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the Alex O’Connor reference is irrelevant. 174.89.177.201 (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

"Homophobic statement" sounds biased

Saying that those are homophobic statements is biased and politically inclined. The lack of support to the LGBTQIASR2D2++ is not homophobic ~2026-75953-2 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Whether it is or isn't, a secondary source that calls Ackerman's statements homophobic is needed before that term goes into this bio. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd say that we shouldn't follow the biases on the sources we cite, isn't Wikipedia a neutral wiki? ~2026-18516-79 (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

it Is NOT biased ~2026-21230-82 (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

again, Wikipedia Is neutral, of someone Is described by sources that we consider reliable as homophobic we're gonna call him homohobic, you guys love to Paint controversial statements in the light of "Just disagreeing", claiming that conversione therapy (wich im not even gonna talk about the Extreme controverso around It) Is "healthy" and that the persecution of marginalized LGBT individuals in Uganda "Is not happening" yes, then that Is exactly an homophobic statement made with malicious intent. You might want to look at WP:No queerphobia and other guidelines for that matter, bye ~2026-21230-82 (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2026 (UTC)