This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marques Brownlee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles
internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
Majority of the Article is a Self-Promotion Piece lacking Secondary, Independent and Reputable Sources
As the title states, the majority of this article is self-promotion piece which primarily references this individual's own YouTube uploads and Tweets from his personal Twitter page. There's hardly any secondary, independent and reputable sources present. Additionally there's entire sections with subheadings that include unsourced content, not even referencing the individual's own page as was done in other sections. If you look at the edit history on this article, another editor by the name of CactiStaccingCrane also pointed out how there's hardly any reputable secondary sources present in an edit they made in June 2023. There's also a lot of irrelevant information. For example his personal life section cites one of his YouTube videos and goes into detail on him owning a Tesla.
Then in the infobox there is an image that Brownlee himself uploaded to commons. The same is the case with the logo present in the article which Brownlee also uploaded to commons. These uploads and their inclusion in the article could be interpreted as a violation of WP:NOTABOUTYOU and WP:COI. Quite frankly, in addition to this article looking like a self-promotion piece, it also borders on not meeting the notability threshold for a seperate Wikipedia article as there's hardly any secondary, independent, sources to confirm majority of the information listed. Anything that is not backed by secondary and independent sources should to be removed and only re-inserted if appropriate secondary sources exist. There's good articles on other tech Youtubers such as iJutine, which reference secondary and indepedent sources throughout as oppose to referencing her own YouTube and social media pages. Instantwatym (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The large number of primary sources is a fair concern. However, saying that uploading a photo of yourself to Commons constitutes a conflict of interest is ridiculous. In fact, the COI policy even encourages doing so. Sourcing copyright-free images of people is very difficult, and adding an image does not inherently affect the neutrality of the page. Even if it did, it wouldn't really apply here anywhere as this particular photo was edited and added to the article by unrelated editors. Regarding notability, there were two deletion discussions in 2014 that both resulted in the article being kept, and Marques is much more notable today than he was nine years ago. Saucy[talk – contribs] 09:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting me about WP:COI and uploads to commons. However, the other points raised in this discussion about poor sourcing are still an issue. Ideally, the article should be revamped and if secondary, independent sources exist to support the majority of the information listed in the article then they should be added in place of references to YouTube uploads and Tweets. I'm not familiar enough with this individual's work to make correction or remove content. I only removed the image and logo without changing any other content, because I (incorrectly). assumed it was a violation of WP:NOTABOUTYOU and WP:COI. Instantwatym (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curosity, I checked the deleted notability discususion from 2014 and the concerns raised about lack of independent and secondary sources were just as relevant then as they are now. Also from what I can see these were not closed discussions and the concerns raised were not even sufficiently addressed nor was a conclusion reached. If anything those open discussions should not have been deleted and should be unarchived. Instantwatym (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
