Talk:Techmoan

Early Life Relevance

The current "Early Life" section bears no relevance to the article - it has a paragraph detailing a hack, citing two sources that both 404, with the only relevance to Techmoan being a passing reference at the end that doesn't actually add anything. Since this isn't "material relevant to the person's notability" as per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE there seems to be little reason to include any of it at all. I'm going to lean towards keeping the initial IP's edit reverted. RDXL (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree to rm the early life section due BLP and no good source quality, but the article should point on related articles and give a good overview to the reader. --Hans Haase (有ゆう问题吗) 10:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Keeping the rewrite

After the rewrite, the article still gives a good overview of the channel; what's been removed was needless clutter, and what was changed was mostly very bad English.

The most obvious example of needless clutter is the "Documentary videos" section, which is literally just a list of videos on the channel, but this applies to other content removed as well; as per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, there's no need to store everything writable, hence the removal to make the article a worthwhile summary. The channel isn't massively notable after all, so a briefer summary is more fitting. Following on from that, there's no need to overdo the citations/links, especially if they're just more links to videos, since this is just a youtube channel.

As for the English, well, the article in general had bad grammar and read fairly badly so was in need of a rewrite on that front.

For those reasons (especially the latter) it makes more sense to keep the rewritten version of the article, and then add in necessary info on top of that, instead of reverting it to something with worse English and too much content. Thanks, RDXL (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I totally disagree! The business background and the focus of the channel have been removed. This is all in all misleading the reader. A list of episodes is usually part of a Wikipedia article which is close to NOTEVERYTHING, but here we point to the most relevant of the channel to give the reader an idea what the channel is. You already exceeded WP:3R without constructive use of former contributions. When having problems with spelling, why not simply fix it? The problem of such disrupted article by removing relevant information is a way to try a removal of the whole article. As the samples do not cover every episode, WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not apply. --Hans Haase (有ゆう问题吗) 11:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• The monetisation is only really worth mentioning if there's something notable about it; he uses a fairly standard set of monetisation methods, so like other articles on youtubers, I felt they just cluttered the page.
• A list of episodes is fine for television shows and other serialised formats, but that's not what a youtuber is; there's no need to list random videos they've uploaded due to the format, as other articles do. The content of the channel is summarised as needed. It's WP:NOTEVERYTHING because of that - the summary of the channel's focus is all that's needed, individual videos aren't worth a mention unless they're notable in their own right.
• The English problem isn't spelling, it's general grammar; the original article just didn't read very well. That was what necessitated chopping up sentences, moving things around and rephrasing things. Hence the request to add content to the rewritten article instead of reverting. Thanks, RDXL (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this statement, but Techmoan is known for true and clear declaring background when needed and wanted. It is a good way in handling the distance to influencer marketing where needed and required. Since writing this sentence, I have see trustworthy videos at every time. In the short version of the article, I appears Techmoan focuses on motorcycles which is not true. Sure, there is affiliate marketing and product testing, but I have seen it always as declared in the videos, least by telling who bought this sample. --Hans Haase (有ゆう问题吗) 21:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Reads better now. --Hans Haase (有ゆう问题吗) 08:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability

Of the sources in this article, most are from the subject's own YouTube page, and the only secondary sources mention the subject only briefly. The secondary sources do not focus on the subject but rather link to the subject's videos as part of journalistic coverage of other topics. I have not been able to find significant coverage about the subject himself, just a few low-importance tech journalism articles whose topic is not Techmoan but rather a topic that Techmoan made a video on. We need sources that have coverage about Techmoan, the person, to make him notable.

Furthermore, because there is little coverage directly about Techmoan, we have not seen secondary sources describe him in detail. Thus, it is hard for us to make editorial decisions about what should be given more weight because we don't know what reliable secondary sources would focus on.

Finally, WP:ARTIST is a relevant set of guidelines for notability (not universal, of course), and it states this of notable individuals:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

A few tech journalism articles might not be enough to fulfill (1). Techmoan fails (2)(3) and (4) as his works have not significantly changed the tech field and have not received much independent press focusing on him and his work rather than the topics discussed by his work.

This article might not meet notability guidelines. --Leugen9001 (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is not a biography. The article is about a YouTube Channel producing documentary. Some see influencer marketing garbage as relevant when even clicks on a video and subscribers are bought and the camera is on an actor. That Mat from Techmoan does, is to figure out – I say in my words: «how to do research to contribute to Wikipedia» – and Mat has declared when he got something or have bought something. So this is not a hidden or silent advertising due not declared. Mat is using sources, you often can find on the web and in Google books. So I am gonna remove that negative contribution due given reason does not apply. --Hans Haase (有ゆう问题吗) 11:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello! What I got from your comment was that you believe that Techmoan cites his sources. But this is about notability, not the reliability of his videos. The issue is not whether Techmoan is telling the truth about something—nobody has accused him of dishonesty. The issue is whether external sources have covered him enough to justify having a page about him. Leugen9001 (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

YouTube channels with less subscribers and views still are relevant. Arguing with a biography does not apply here. Reverting to such versions can be seen as an interest against the given knowledge. --Hans Haase (有ゆう问题吗) 13:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if other YouTube channels with fewer subscribers and views are still relevant. Per Wikipedia:Notability (web), your subjective judgment of Techmoan's notability or popularity does not matter. Please familiarize yourself with relevant wp:notability policy. It's about whether there's sufficient coverage in secondary sources. There is no significant coverage in secondary sources; all of the secondary sources are not directly about him, so we cannot write anything meaningful using secondary sources alone. If you believe that the biography guidelines do not apply, then maybe WP:WEBCRIT does. But it still requires meaningful coverage in secondary sources. The secondary sources cite him or include his videos as part of coverage about something else, but they do not really describe the channel other than in passing. --Leugen9001 (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This article does have issues, personly I do not like the extent it references self-published Youtube videos - though the ones used would not violate WP:YOUTUBE. Regards to Wikipedia:Notability (web) I would say it qualifies as the channel and its content were the main subject of the articles cited and are not Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. A google also search shows there are more articles by reputable publishers about the channel on the web than are cited in this page. --Voello (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrong understanding of WP:YOUTUBE. When using YouTube as a source, is is not good for writing reliable information, but when verified by other sources, it looks better. YouTube is used here as a reference of an existing video only. Here is said, Techmoan did a video about an item, only. But what this item is, is referenced by other sources like Billboard magazine or else. When a video is uploaded by a user, YouTube links to the channel of this user. As there are other references that takt about Techmoan, we can be sure that is his channel. Such information can be taken from there sources without any violation of Wikipedia guidelines. 700,000 subscribers and a 130,000,000 views should exceed any trivial… --Hans Haase (有ゆう问题吗) 17:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I said both that the videos used did not violate WP:YOUTUBE and that the channel is notable. However, I think the amount of videos referenced is possibly Wikipedia:Citation overkill especially if links to a video are already in a source. The topic itself is notable but frankly, some content in the "Later documentary videos" section is not. --Voello _talk 19:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree - as I said in the section above, listing random videos goes against WP:NOTEVERYTHING and the entire "documentary videos" section doesn't have anything showing why those videos are notable enough to be included; the only citation is the video itself, which it goes without saying doesn't fit the bill.

As for notability of the article itself, it really does seem like all the articles I can find are just using his videos as a springboard for the article, and nothing on techmoan himself - i.e. everything is basically sourced to Techmoan. While I'd obviously prefer to have an article over no article, even the much smaller article befitting the channel would still just be a reading of his website and youtube channel, which poses problems. RDXL (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

How would You show what the channel really is and what is its main focus on? This evidence are the videos itself. --Hans Haase (有ゆう问题吗) 10:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, it is in my opinion that for Techmoan to be an article on Wikipedia, the article cannot rely on his own videos on Youtube for references. Even though Techmoan’s videos appear to be adequately researched, and was a subject of a few articles by Popular Mechanics, there have to be more third party sources that cover his vintage technology discoveries. --Marianian^(talk) 10:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The requirement, not only to rely an article on primary sources is full filled. It is not state of the art or relyable journalism not to write about proofed facts or go against existing facts. Btw. how do You call an editor with 4.807 contributions even in this project? With over a 3/4 Million subscribers and a total of 147 Million views over all videos should be out of doubt. --Hans Haase (有ゆう问题吗) 13:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @Marianian: but feel some of the references to his videos can be used to make simple statements about the content (but not to justify original research), as described in WP:PRIMARYCARE. This does not change that the article might need a couple more secondary sources to establish notability. --Voello _talk 09:22, 26 February 2019 (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:

• Techmoanlogo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)