The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. As per the DRV result, no need to wait any longer--or at all--before closing this.

Firstly, neither G4 nor G5 apply here. The article has been edited by various good-faith editors, and is no longer essentially identical to any deleted version. I also find no basis in policy or guideline that coverage for North American people must come from North American sources. Promotional tone should be fixed editorially, and is not a valid deletion criterion unless the page meets G11, which this one does not.

Conversely, I also find most of the Keep arguments weak. Being famous in certain circles or starting a big teenage media company are not P&G-based arguments. In the end, as always, things boil down to source assessment. And on this front, the Delete views correctly argued that in marginal cases like this, WP:BIO compels us to delete the page. If the subject was indeed as notable as the Keep participants claim, surely there would be sources offering more significant, independent coverage than the few interviews cited, as pointed out by several participants.

Finally, a proposal to Draftify received limited support here. Without a concrete plan to work on the page, including both editors ready to do the work and potential independent sources to prove notability, all within the six month timeframe, moving a potential BLP violation to draftspace seems ill-advised. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Justin Jin (entrepreneur)

Justin Jin (entrepreneur) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reasonable purpose for a standalone article. I noticed this could be vandalism since the parenthesis isn't movable except by an admin. Well, I can't find sources which didn't provide me enough reasons to be inclusive. Fails WP: GNG. The founding company doesn't seem to be notable or reach any WP: ORG and some of not all seems to base on the company and not the subject (there could be mentions) but still Notability is not inherited. While I believe Notability is not permanent, The young subject can be notable in the future All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Business. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: hello, I'm the person who accepted this out of AfC. i agree with you that the company is not quite meeting notability, which is why i rejected it, as the sources are clearly predominately about the founder. the sources in question, though, include Billboard, The Source, El Caribe, and Independent Nigeria, all of which profile Justin Jin quite in-depth and are generally reliable. She was ^{a fairy} 07:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I also found this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Jin. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  You should have found that before nom'ing this, as the article is a G5G4 candidate. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ UtherSRG G4 applies for the articles which are accepted from draft too. What i knew or personally believe was only for mainspace articles. DIV IN E 11:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I don't know what your point is here. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  As you’re administrator of english Wikipedia, i want to know from you that does G4 applies for the Wikipedia articles which were approved from draft where multiple contributors has already participated? DIV IN E 14:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  You can read it yourself at WP:CSD#G4. But yes, drafts moved to article space are included, as long as they are still substantively the same as the deleted article. It matters not that other editors have touched it, only that the material is sufficiently identical. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  If it wasn’t identical then why we re’ debating here in deletion discussion. DIV IN E 17:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Fails WP: ANYBIO, WP: CREATIVE and WP: BASIC#1 since it clearly states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability where the articles if not all talks about the teenager and a non notable company he founded. I am also sensing WP: UPE since this page from the previous AFD discussion and salting when i wanted to move to Justin Jin (removing the parenthesis). I have tried to take info from all the sources, but they kept talking the same thing about the subjects media industry. I meant there is no context or importance of meeting notability. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 10:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete: G5G4 of Justin Jin - UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  it doesn't quite make sense where your G5 vote is coming from, UtherSRG: if the article's author isn't blocked, and in any case, i believe i've already applied some relatively substantial edits. She was ^{a fairy} 12:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Whoops! I should have said G4. I've amended. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  i'm not sure that works here. the above discussion took place one year ago, and according to the source assessment table, 0 of them are repeated? She was ^{a fairy} 13:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  G4 is about content, not sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  it applies to sufficiently identical copies, and according to the wayback machine, there are very significant differences, completely failing G4. She was ^{a fairy} 13:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  sufficiently identical is vague. The content is essentially the same. There is no new information in the new article, there are no new assertions of notability. For me, that is sufficiently identical. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment – The nominator's peculiar passion to delete this page and the imprecise G4 rationale by an administrator (having been deleted over a year ago, with strong changes and a massive increase in sourcing, and no hoaxes) seem to reflect a common trend I've seen on Wikipedia. Young, relatively notable subjects such as Rishab Jain, Avi Schiffmann, Jenk Oz, Kevin Leyes (which has since been recreated under Leyes (singer) due to new sourcing, which is evidently the case here as well, are often a target of editors. For instance, comments by editors like "I don't see what is special about this kid" is borderline derogatory. (I'm excluding sports people by the way, who have relatively lower requirements for notability). I came across this person when creating a draft of a different person of the same name, which firsthand pulled up a USA Today Contributor piece, which does not establish notability, and hence why I disregarded it. The sourcing presented here is strong (six four generally reliable sources), though I'm not going to place my vote just yet.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://billboard.ar/la-carrera-musical-secreta-de-justin-jin/		WP:RSMUSIC		✔ Yes
https://www.elcaribe.com.do/gente/a-y-e/de-nino-le-encantaban-los-videojuegos-ahora-justin-jin-esta-construyendo-un-imperio-mediatico/		Newspaper of record		✔ Yes
https://www.excelsior.com.mx/trending/justin-jin-entre-la-innovacion-y-la-travesia-en-la-era-digital/1636100		established Mexican paper	~ ChatGPT?	~ Partial
https://thesource.com/2023/12/28/inside-justin-jins-poybo-empire/	s	WP:RSMUSIC		✔ Yes
https://independent.ng/teenagers-are-building-africas-youth-media-empire/		WP:NGRS	WP:100WORDS	✔ Yes
https://nl.mashable.com/entertainement/9316/minecraft-made-justin-jin-a-star-now-hes-a-media-mogul		~ WP:MASHABLE		~ Partial
https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/leaders/exclusive-teen-mogul-justin-jin-agrees-to-divest-some-media-assets-to-expand-african/fqfvl4l	Prob press release	~ WP:BUSINESSINSIDER	~ WP:ROUTINE	✘ No
https://dailytrust.com/meet-the-billion-view-digital-upstart-and-its-16-year-old-founder/		WP:NGRS		✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

WP:PRIMARY: Sources 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are interviews. Interviews are not independent and do not count towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 19:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. An overachiever in Silicon Valley who has been discussed in a myriad of publications including ones presented in the “source assessment table”. According to the General Notability Guideline, “Significant coverage” is a factor and these reliable sources do address Mr. Justin Jin in great detail. 205.220.129.230 ( talk) 23:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  How does three or four article talking about a media company and their founder notable? The articles is lacking context and should not be inherited from his "media company." Otherwise, It fails Business People guideline. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 05:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Otuọcha your line of inquiry in this discussion appears to be quite flawed, and overall a bit questionable. isn't there much more than three or four articles which all vastly revolve around Justin Jin? how are they lacking context? you should also probably review WP:INHERITED. the hyperfocus on Justin Jin is why I believe the company itself falls short of WP:NCORP. the articles profile, analyze him, but not exactly much about what the company itself does. the company is likely a too soon case. i agree with TLA's summary, although I think business insider should be treated completely as a press release and routine coverage. She was ^{a fairy} 06:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  By TLA's summary, if you're referring to the source assessment table, I've already pointed out that interviews are not considered independent and are deemed as primary sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 10:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'm willing to adjust my table, but from what I understand is that the independence of interviews depend on the actual content. Is there anywhere that specifically states that interviews are not considered independent, full stop? TLA ^tlak 03:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Can you point to the policy that says "independence of interviews depend on the actual content"? WP:PRIMARY says Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Here, the interviewer is obviously involved, and the interviewee is the subject who is talking about themselves. For clarity, WP:PRIMARYNEWS, WP:ALLPRIMARY and WP:SPIP discuss interviews as sources. Majority of the sources here are interviews, which do not count towards GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 07:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'm looking for clarity because I participate in AfD often and reviewing pages. I've come across that in many other AfDs (I don't want to link to them to canvas) but there is one going on right now in which two autopatrolled+NPP users have stated although the interview itself is primary, the information the source often provides before the interview can be considered a secondary source. In addition, the WP:PRIMARYNEWS you linked to me contains an example of an interview primary source: The reporter quotes the politician's speech. The talk show host interviews a celebrity. If the reporter simply relays what the politician says that is primary, and a talk show host interviewing a celebrity is just a plain question & answer, and that's primary. These sources are far from that. I also see that you said below that WP:INTERVIEW is an essay, and that is true, but it is useful and there really is no other place that writes extensively about a rather relevant policy. TLA ^tlak 01:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Most interviews conducted by reputable journalists or news publications typically begin with a brief overview of the subject, which may be considered secondary and the information can be used in the article(without attribution). But, the gist will not have significant coverage and the point here is that they do not count towards GNG. WP:INTERVIEW is an essay and has no weightage in AfDs. Not sure if you have noticed the last part of Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability, "...can be considered as evidence of notability". Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 06:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  A "myriad"? Surely that's an exaggeration. Deb ( talk) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• keep, Interviews can be a secondary sources per WP:INTERVIEW. The Source and the Daily Trust articles only have 10-15% quoted from Jin, the rest is analysis or comparison, so this meets biographical notability requirements. Captain ☎ 10:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that CaptainBottle ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. reply

  CaptainBottle: WP:INTERVIEWS is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 10:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I see you're relatively very new perhaps days to Enwiki. The article may be filled as WP: REFBOMB. There can be WP: LOTSOFSOURCES yet no credibility. I know how Nigerian Media works per Independent Nigeria, Daily Trust, etc and I must say; the sources just treated the subject as the teenage founder of a media industry. In analysis, there is always a way to show Notability. I can't find the subject being treated alone on news per his achievements/or career and a media qualifier, or any award for media excellence since he is the CEO of Poybo. Being the CEO of Poybo is not enough to be inclusive and the media industry is not notable per WP: ORG/ WP:N unlike Amazon, Dangote Group, etc or like business moguls who had won awards of excellence or profiled as an influential person". I believe I have cleared that Many sources are not enough! All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 10:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment – Otuọcha this is rather incoherent. If the pubs you are referring to are treating the subject as the teenage founder of a media industry, what do you mean by can't find the subject being treated alone on news per his achievements/or career and a media qualifier? Poybo doesn’t have an article for notability inheriting and awards are not necessary for establishing notability. I would also advise against the possible WP:BLUDGEONing of this discussion. TLA ^tlak 03:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  This may be my last comment. I don't understand when you stated WP: BLUDGEON. Well, per WP: SATISFY, "Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not." All I am saying is this article is a G4 which I realized later after trying to remove the unnecessary parenthesis. For the article in question, it fails GNG and not quite SIGCOV. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 20:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete Coverage is really thin making it a borderline case for the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG; a compromise is inadvisable in a businessperson biography. Nor am I convinced of the "independent" and "multiple" aspects of the sources presented. Regarding the latter, all the sources are saying more or less the same thing, which is very little. Regarding the former, I am taking into considering previous history of the article, the fact that non-regular editors have shown to vote keep on this article which was never indexed and is under a title with disambiguator. The fact that the sources say more or less the same thing also contributes to a lack of confidence in them regarding independence. Also adding to the same, is the fact that the sources presented are of Latin American and African origin while the subject is Canadian, though there is no convincing case made that the subject has predominantly and exclusively worked in those far away places. Finally, the claim to notability in itself is really thin. I get the idea that it's a young person who's been doing some things, but it's hard to see a coherent and persuasive picture of the totality of his activities, how integral he may be to those and what if any lasting impact they might have. I see an element of WP:CRYSTAL in the coverage that exists and in a potential presumption of notability we might make. If he stopped doing everything he's been doing today, would we consider him a notable businessperson in 2044? The answer for me is a firm "no", on the merits of the sourcing presented. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 05:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep – There is no inheriting in terms of notability from the Poybo company here — it actually seems the other way around or at the very least equal. As well, Poybo doesn’t have an article for inheriting. Coverage revolves primarily around the subject, not the company. WP:G4 is also utterly inapplicable — not only being a speedy delete, the previous AfD (12 months ago) cited none of these new applicable sources as Shewasafairy noted, the current article writes about a new company, and has potential for expansion. The African sourcing does make sense per the selling of a subsidiary or whatever, but that really shouldn’t be hypothesized/considered about and is not a policy. As well, Spanish language should not be considered per WP:GNG. With WP:Interviews#Notability and reviewing past AfDs and discussions regarding the independence of interviews, interviews can help establish notability, and regardless the interview sourcing used here has considerable secondary content. There’s also sufficient non-interview sourcing. I’ll also say that the nominator’s rationales throughout has been a bit contradictory, maybe that's a language thing, but that doesn’t play into my analysis. Neither the previous history of an article nor whatever SPA may be going on here should be any part of determining notability. Unless, of course, an article is recreated under G4 with no substantial changes or additions to sourcing, which is not the case here. WP:CRYSTAL should apply to the Wikipedia project, not apply to the coverage itself; on the other hand, if I’m going to counter crystal, what person would stop doing everything he’s been doing today, and would more coverage appear rather soon that would undoubtedly push this arguably borderline subject over the edge, much less by 2044? I think so. Finally, the claim to notability — having founded what a couple sources deem the largest teen media companies — here is strong enough (it was added a couple hours after Usedtobecool’s vote). To be fair, WP:TOOSOON was originally a potential consideration for me, which is why I was a little hesitant to place a straight-up vote, but with further review of the sourcing and that the second criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER may potentially apply here, this meets and exceeds our notability criteria based on real policy. TLA ^tlak 02:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  A very weak argument expanded into wall of text. WP:ENTERTAINER is for actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. I believe he fits none of the categories. Stop bringing essays into XfD arguments, they are not policies. There’s also sufficient non-interview sourcing, Could you please provide the sources in the reply below? I would like to review. While the secondary content from interviews can be added into the article, the interview source as a whole is not independent. Therefore, it does not count towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 08:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, it was not my intention to make a wall of text/essay. My small point with WP:ENTERTAINER relates to comedians, vaguely, with the fact that the subject seems to make comedy videos and that the company itself posts a lot of memes. TLA ^tlak 11:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  WP:Entertainment? you’re modifying your own comments. DIV IN E 17:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Per the above users, Fairy and TLA, what has to be noted here is that while WP: Interview is not fully reliable, the articles written so long before the interview or partial interview are subjected to reliable sources. DIV IN E 06:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Striking !vote not made in good faith; see Special:Diff/1217066849. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment. it may be worth disregarding the G4. i disagreed with it, but after the changes added a couple days ago it objectively directly addresses the concern with no new assertions of notability. She was ^{a fairy} 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Per my comments regarding the source assessment table and WP:INTERVIEW essay [1] [2]. I am willing to change my vote to keep if someone can provide three independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 10:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I still disagree with you directly calling these sources containing small portions of an interview a non-independent source, but here are just three with nothing quoted from the subject, two of which are RS and one is an established WP:NEWSORG: Billboard, Independent, Excélsior (this reads slightly promotional from the start, but later on Pacheco writes this success comes with increasing scrutiny of the company's labor and ethical practices, especially regarding the exploitation of young creators and the hiring of workers in precarious conditions in developing countries (translated) so it's probably a Google Translate issue. TLA ^tlak 11:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Putting aside for a moment the fact that, again, it's Billboard Argentina covering a Canadian figure, not Billboard US or Billboard Canada, are we sure Billboard Argentina is the real deal? Looks like you're inheriting its reliability and reputation from Billboard, a US organisation. The links in the about section of that article just reload the page, and the twitter link takes you to an account with 200K followers compared to 14M for Billboard. Clicking through Billboard Argentina indicates its ownership and licensing belongs to an Argentinian company, compared to Billboard Japan or Billboard Brasil which state in the lead that they are associated with the US Billboard. I go back to concerns I raised in my !vote again. We usually associate this kind of brand theft, if it is that, with covert advertisers and spammers, and often even covert Wikipedia UPEs. —  Usedtobecool  ☎️ 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  It is the real deal. TLA ^tlak 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  But you are inheriting the reliability and reputation from the US Billboard, yeah? —  Usedtobecool  ☎️ 12:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  They co-publish a chart and Billboard Argentina is a frequent writer for billboard.com. At the moment, my assumption is that it is reliable. TLA ^tlak 12:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Since it calls an obscure 17-year-old Canadian a "mogul", a word usually reserved for the likes of Rupert Murdoch, I am thinking not so much. In any case, I think you should amend your source analysis table, lest people think RSMUSIC lists Billboard Argentina as a reliable source. When you take out the rumors, speculation, unattributed quotes and empty praises, there really isn't much there. One of the sources of that piece is "google search". The most it can give is: "Justin Jin is a media entrepreneur and youtuber who owns Poybo Media Group." —  Usedtobecool  ☎️ 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  It is common for publications to use an eye-catching word in the headline. The definition of "Mogul" certainly vague, and the piece does actually verify a connection to a 500,000 monthly listener "secret music career" from the Poybo producer. TLA ^tlak 14:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  The Excélsior article is a joke. There is no significant coverage about him on the article apart from the PR fluffery. The article only has praises and admiration about the subject, but not a single detail about his life or work in-depth. I am yet to check the other two sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 12:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Fair. I don't really like that source either, there is a section without praise, but it reads somewhat like an edited AI entry. Jeraxmoira, as you mentioned once that reputable publications need analysis and commentary, I suggest reading Daily Trust, and that secondary sources typically begin with a brief overview of the subject, I also suggest checking out The Source. Both are RS. TLA ^tlak 14:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Please stop sharing sources before analyzing them yourself. The article from Independent does not have significant coverage. Daily Trust and The Source are interviews. Do not selectively quote from my previous comment, I only said "Most interviews conducted by reputable journalists... - ... which may be considered secondary and the information can be used in the article(without attribution)". I never implied that it counts towards GNG. At this point, I am only repeating what I have said all this while, so I'll not be responding here unless you have something policy backed. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 16:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I did analyze them. The Independent meets WP:100WORDS, an essay but what constitutes WP:SIGCOV itself is vague. I'm maybe going a bit far here, but I have seen in this AfD (I think I remember seeing another one but I can't find it nor do I want to hunt for it) you state the Hindu article contributes to GNG, while the Hindu article contains considerably more quoting than the two interview sources I mentioned as well as that canvassed (?) user.

  Are you saying here that any interview = not contributing to GNG? There is very minimal direct quoting in many of these sources containing interviews. For now, I don't want to get involved further in this as we are practically going nowhere, and will be retaining my keep vote. TLA ^tlak 12:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Stop selectively quoting my comments out of context, [3]. The paragraph on Independent has very little detail about him i.e., 'he is 17' and 'he leads Poybo'. This is nowhere near significant coverage. All the sources say the same. Does the source have anything new to add or is this a WP:BLP1E candidate? Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Focusing on source assessment would be more helpful than arguing about applicable guidelines or speedy criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Analysing the sources. The first source here [4] was from the citation doubtful of the subject when this writing was made: A mysterious artist profile, 50mMidas, was discovered late last year while scrolling through Spotify's top song charts. The account, with an equally random Instagram page, has been rising through the ranks, becoming a competitive music artist on the platform with over 500,000 monthly listeners and another paragraph began; A Google search revealed that the artist likely belonged to Justin Jin, the teen CEO of the world's largest teen media company. Accessing the first citation was without doubt it was bias-written from related point of view.The second citation here [5] was written by a contributor and sounds promotional. For me, it may have been created from a related view since some wordings lacks editorial pass. The third source here [6] was written focusing on "one Muraty" with a/few mention of the article's subject "Jin". I won't say it is inclusively a source. The fourth source [7] was marked yellow by my citation highlighter meaning; the source is likely to be reliable. Looking into the article, it systematically wasn't news, it's a bit of few quotations of "Jin". The source was created perhaps by a contributor since there was no indication it was written by an author at Mashable. The [8], [9] and [10] for the article were cited for, Jin lives in Ambleside, West Vancouver. He goes to Mulgrave School. As of 2024, he hasn't attended college All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 20:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Has a very PROMO feel to it. No coverage at all in Canadian sources, only a few conferences. Coverage in Argentina and in India [11], which seem to me to be undeclared paid promotional content. The IBT source is a non-RS, so this has PROMO-vibes. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: "PROMO-vibes" is not a strong assessment. the ib times source is not even used here. 6/9 of the sources here are green-label (reliable). She was ^{a fairy} 02:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The colours don't necessarily represent consensus. Even if they did, there's always more to source analysis than whether it comes from one considered generally reliable. —  Usedtobecool  ☎️ 03:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    A good amount of them do. There is 6, and to me, 5 of them meet our requirements for significant coverage and independence. TLA ^tlak 12:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    It's most fit when citations are from reliable sources. Like @ Usedtobecool said, its more to verifiability (considering the basis of the citation and at some cases: what it cites). It is not regarded to take for example a hoax that cites, "John Doe was born in Italy but grew up in Iowa. He is a socially influencing personality known for his diverse way of accepting fact of his company in Iowa also. His parents were the first CEO but handed it over to him because he was a good and god-fearing child. Even I, the editor love such narrative!". Looking at that above, it may have been written maybe by Mashable, NY times, Al Jazeera and many others. Are you saying it passes GNG when it came from a reliable source but fails verifiability, credibility and editorial..ity? All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 14:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    • Comment came across a sh*t storm. Leaning towards keep and improve. so this Kid Justin Jin at first glance appears to meet the the notability criteria for biographies on Wikipedia WP:BIO, particularly as an individual who has gained recognition in the media industry as a young entrepreneur and media executive. The issue I am having hard time believing that with the sources, is if we all couldn't find 2-3 reliable sources... Some of the sources do seem unquestionably strong. There are no required set amount of sources to establish notability.
    • The references provided suggest significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including international media outlets that discuss his international work and impact on youth-led media WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV The comparison to established media figures like Henry Luce and Rupert Murdoch indicates that Jin's activities have sparked attention beyond trivial mentions. However, the article would benefit from additional citations to address the [citation needed] tag and to strengthen the claims made, particularly with regard to Poybo Media's status as the world's biggest teenager-led media company. The [better source needed] tag also suggests that a more reliable source is required for the Business Insider claim. This kid looks like he is doing youth activism according to the sources, and while this article needs cleanup. I also saw users saying the WP:intertviews weren't valid, becauase: "thats an essay on wikipedia" well we hold essays to high standards. WP:Draftify is an Essay, yet if fail to follow the guidelines set out in that essay, you can lose perms for not following. I am going to do some scrolling. Before casting my vote. I am really confused as to why it seems like an us vs him thing. It gets to the point where others may make interpretations of WP policy based on their understanding of it.

    Comintell ( talk) 17:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    Justin Jin, being a media 'mogul', will obviously have a good enough PR team to set up interviews for him. Unless you have a very strong reason as to why WP:INTERVIEWS should be considered in this case and why Justin Jin should be treated as an exception from GNG, please don't waste your time bringing up the essay again. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 18:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    Its only primary if its based on a vanilla/routine interview right? Which don't contribute to GNG (like a talkshow/whatnot??) WP:Interviews seemed appropriate towards the argument for the ones you brought up with @ I'm tla, because they didn't seem to be the exact definition of a routine interview like this one from The Source, which appeared to be an article that featured original insight and analysis + quotes from the subject? Are you sure that references like that don't count towards GNG? What throws me off is the fact that they don't seem to be routine "interviews," which is what I thought didn't count. This entire AfD seems split divided.

    Even though i'm still not 100% convinced that the page should be deleted, I am going to just drop the stick considering there's a mixed bag of opinions in this discussion. I hope you see where I was coming from and why I brought up WP:Interviews. Hopefully my response is up to the high standards you've framed. Sorry if I upset you. I'm going to excuse myself from this discussion. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Comintell ( talk) 23:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    Let me summarize. I am not going to be lenient in this particular case just because he gave interviews to several news media outlets. Despite being the founder of the world's largest teenager-led media company and working in the media/entertainment industry, the absence of independent coverage is a huge red flag. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 05:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    I guess I'm going to continue my involvement here. I don't know about you, but being the founder of the world's largest teenager-led media company rings a bell at WP:ENT#2. It might also be worth mentioning that while the number of subscribers certainly cannot determine notability, it can only help at WP:ENT. The independent coverage I presented above satisfies me, but it appears I missed Dana Mathews' (GQ's Entertainment Director) profile of Jin here from being on the cover of the GQ's Power Issue.

    WP:BLP1E really does not apply here. Founding a company is not an event, and I don't see how starting a (presumably) high-profile one would make a person remain a low-profile individual. Citing an essay again *sigh* WP:BLP1ENOT. TLA ^tlak 09:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    This is the second time you've brought up WP:ENT in the discussion. Have you even checked the first line of WP:ENT before assessing the subject for criteria #1 and #2? You mentioned he was a comedian previously, but none of the sources I've seen so far have indicated that. Can you please stop introducing SNG criterias you're not familiar with as it is prolonging this AfD thread unnecessarily. And the GQ article you mentioned was posted, archived on the Wayback Machine and deleted on the same date (March 15, 2024). Another red flag? How you came across the archived version is a question for another day. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 15:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    Actually, I think I am familiar enough with WP:ENT. See WP:YTN, and I would, again, say that memes = comedy.

    The GQ piece is in the article itself. I'm tla ( talk) 15:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    Sorry, but I am done. I don't think you have enough competence to understand what the other editors and I are trying to convey. You first cite WP:INTERVIEWS and then once it failed, you dug up WP:ENT. It was clearly explained and is also well known to anyone who is part of this AfD that the subject is not known/notable for his meme(comedy?) videos and to add on, the channel has been inactive from 13 June 2023. Now, you have stumbled upon another essay, WP:YTN, which also mentions that only 7% of articles have been kept of subjects with < 100k subs, but you seem to ignoring it. You can keep digging up more and more essays, but justin jin does not pass WP:GNG and the rest of SNGs do not apply to him. The GQ piece is very suspicious as I have already mentioned that it was created, archived and deleted in a single day and now you have the archived version with no trace of it anywhere else. Below, you have mentioned 4 statements that clearly belongs in the Poybo article if and when it is created. There is a reason why the article about Alakh Pandey, the founder of Physics Wallah, was and is still being redirected or merged to the company's article whenever someone tries to recreate it. I am not saying the same outcome should be given here as every AfD needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and not by previous consensus on other topics or AfDs. When there are only/mostly interviews by Justin as sources right now, it makes it really hard to verify all the claims made by them as obviously the next interviewer is going to do their due diligence from the previously written sources to add their own secondary analysis and comments in between their interview, which ultimately violates the WP:OR ( WP:PSTS section) policy. From what I have seen till now, none of the sources are detailed enough, they are largely just puff pieces. Note to closing admin: The above statement should be considered with my previously casted delete vote. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 19:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    Failed? I still partly stand by WP:INTERVIEW and a couple other people seem to have also noted that. Although, thank you for letting me understand that essays can be quite weak in AfDs. That canvassed (?) user noted that 10-15% of the Source and Daily Trust articles are quotes, and using a word counter that is true, so it is far from primary. You noted that the interviewer is obviously involved, involved in what? Interviewing? Obviously. The policy states only those close to an event are not primary, and the examples given at WP:PRIMARYNEWS are very different.

    That above makes this subject pass WP:GNG, and I located WP:ENT because that is also passed. My point is that the entire company is based on memes and comedy, both based on the social media accounts I could locate and the press coverage. The company has 7 million followers according to El Caribe. Note that the El Caribe article has an interview, but the conclusion is entirely secondary. Finally, you seem to agree that the GQ piece is strong, but you're saying that it is very suspicious when it is still indexed online. I believe our discussion has been robust and productive, though I don't want us to be screaming in each other's faces so I hope we can agree that the baseline here is a draftify, until good more sourcing is discovered. TLA ^tlak 12:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    GQ website says The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, "cached" or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Good luck with using the GQ article that you think, "I seem to agree that it is a strong piece", Btw nice interpretation of my comments. Entire company is based on memes and comedy and The company has 7 million followers, please proceed to create an article for the company and stop wasting your time here. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 20:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    I wonder how that adds to WP:ENT. @ I'm tla, your argument on the sources seems not worthy and biased. You jumped from accessing the sources to ENT. If the company is verbally the largest, give me three worthwhile sources (not interview or reporting what the founder had said) that analysed the bigness../or how its was the largest and I will withdraw! All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 15:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    Well, that's the point of a discussion.

    Billboard: 1. world's largest teen media company.

    2. Independent: the startup has been endorsed by several media enthusiasts as a necessary innovation needed to accelerate youth media in Africa.

    2. AMG’s Poybo Africa among the largest youth media companies in Africa, according to Business Insider’s analysis

    4. GQ: a money-making enterprise often deemed the largest of its kind. I'm tla ( talk) 15:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    I am not satisfied with that. For independent news, that should be totally not considered. I know how the media works in Nigeria and this article lacks coverage. Seems to be paid additions to news. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 23:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    It is very unclear what you mean by For independent news, that should be totally not considered. By the way, the one source out of the four I cited above that is Nigerian is the Independent. I've given you sources that verify it is indeed the largest. TLA ^tlak 12:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep… coming as a bulgarian reader who has known 50mMidas (Justin Jin) from YT. No one asked me to come here, I don’t usually care about such situations but something is fixing up. I have seen young dudes whatnot getting sent to Articles for deletion and then seeing a wave of people voting a delete. Maybe when we are all younger in high school we’ve done something cool, been a smart student, maybe got interviewed in the local paper. But there is a difference between that and the teen who starts a business and gets multiple interviews in reliable news sources about it. Starting a business young won't make anyone notable, even making a ton of money or getting a bunch of subs like this guy won't win anyone notability. But having reliable sources write about your business does start to get you genuine notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.68.88 ( talk) 13:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Its good you came as you said. Well, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:INTERVIEWS and see all about them. You argument should be a young teen starting a business is not considered notability because he/she may not be noticeable. But when that teen has appeared on multiple interviews, it shows he/she is notable because it's difficult teens being interviewed. I don't know but that's my interpretation . The article has WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, but they are blatantly seeming paid works even. Looking at them, there isn't a coverage, rather ones that do come a time and the other next five days. The argument is that the subject is not notable per WP: ENT and meets no SNG for Wikipedia. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk) 15:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete… Written in a promotional style. Deb ( talk) 18:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

So it’s eligible if we go with WP:NPOV @ Deb ? DIV IN E 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Are you saying you didn't write it from a neutral point of view? Deb ( talk) 19:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I am just curious and asking as you’ve mentioned promotional style. While that falls under [WP:ADV]] #CSD and there was question mark ❓ DIV IN E 06:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Promotional article with questionable sources, and the past promotional edits around all of this push me towards delete. Ravensfire ( talk) 00:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Maker here. The Justin is notable. Meets GNG due to source assessment way above that I agree. Even if some are interviews that is okay because they have a lot of evaluation. Language of source does not affect reliability according to GNG policy. Also meets #2. of WP : ENT because of starting the biggest teenager media company in the world. Articles for deletion is not for cleanup so if article is written promotionally I’m sorry my English is not the best but that can be fixed with editing. I see new sources are coming out like recent GQ article added and being published continually. Deondernemers ( talk) 02:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  He does not meet WP:ENT to even assess the #1 and #2 criteria listed on it. The GQ source is useless unless you have written permission from Condé Nast allowing the use of the cached version. He did not create or contribute anything unique, prolific, or innovative as the short videos, reels, relatable content and memes already existed. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 08:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after a non-admin closure of "no consensus" was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 27. Any admin may reclose at any time if warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Draftify Wasn't going to vote after the last AfD got chatotic originally, but given the controversial previous AfD and the relisting, this isn't ready for mainspace, and as others like TLA have pointed some sources a good, but there may not be enough to establish notability yet given some of the arguments presented by other editors... But there seems to be an indication that this subject could very well pass GNG if more WP/RS become available. Draftification seems to be the most uncontroversial.

Comintell ( talk) 03:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• delete Only promotional sources. - Altenmann >talk 01:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment – Among others, a recent solid profile in The Nation which I mentioned at DR. There's also an exposé in The Independent which is interesting. TLA ^tlak 01:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment-- When keeps rule in raw numbers, but their arguments are exceedingly weak, AFDs usually close as no consensus in my experience. So, I feel complelled to note,with no offence intended to the future closer of this, that this AFD has seen an unusually high participation from inexperienced editors and/or IPs. Now one of the known UPE editors who had showed up out of nowhere to challenge deletion has proactively disclosed he was paid $100 to vote keep here [12]. I suspect this article has been created for pay and still may be being held hostage. In light of this, I implore the closer to give special considerations to concerns about sourcing that I and Jeraxmoira have raised at length, and provide weight to the soundness of arguments and correctness or lack thereof in interpretation of policies that have been invoked, even more so than we usually do in AFDs. Thanks! Usedtobecool  ☎️ 02:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Per WP:BLP policy, we need to have strong sourcing, and usually, a no consensus on the quality of sourcing should result in deletion of relevant content, which in this case would be the whole article. There have been numerous attempts to put in and to take out this claim for example. Without high quality sourcing, it's against BLP policy to include it, and removing it but keeping the article exacerbates further the WP:NPOV problems which are already close to WP:COVERT, if not already there. —  Usedtobecool  ☎️ 03:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

    What are the thoughts on this? TLA ^tlak 16:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

    The newspaper seems to be a generally reliable source. However it is based on primary sources with conflicts of interest, i.e. current and former employees, and it's not always clear which claims have been independently verified. It also contains quotes and information pertaining more to Poybo than Jin. So, I think it could be a good starting point, but often unsuitable by itself as we do not include rumours and speculations, and unspecific claims can not summarised in encyclopedic language. I also don't like that it was produced while we were discussing the article here. We first got spammy sources, then paid WP push based on those sources and when it's come to AFD, they've invited the Nation to talk to them and even showed them internal company docs? I think we should wait a few months or however long it takes to see how it develops, whether we get more reliable sources that help us decide what the NPOV view on Jin really is. GNG requires "multiple", "independent" and "significant" coverage. Used with care, I could be persuaded to count this as one on the way to "multiple". We still need a couple more, and their quality and quantity of coverage would have a significant influence on how usable this source turns out to be. If you or anyone else wants to work in draftspace while we wait for developments, I really have no objection to that. That's the standard practice for AFD-deleted articles anyway. Best, —  Usedtobecool  ☎️ 17:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

    I would like to add that WP:BLP puts higher requirements on sources. - Altenmann >talk 09:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

    The byline reads 'Our Reporter'. Here's another article promoting a business school. There is no way to tell the difference between which articles are sponsored and which are not. If they are willing to pay $100 for a vote on this AfD, it is very easy to get an article in the leading news publications as well. A suitable example will be the GQ article that you shared above. I believe it was written just to be archived on the same day and used as a source for Wikipedia. Also, please stop the canvassing. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 10:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

    With some digging, while very subtle, you can actually check it here. And the GQ article is online again. What you are referring to was also not canvassing, as I was abiding by WP:APPNOTE. TLA ^tlak 10:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

    You did not follow what's on WP:APPNOTE: Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. The {{Please see}} template may help in notifying people in a quick, simple, and neutral manner.

    Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users.

    Draftify at AfD Justin Jin

    I see that you are inactive so hopefully this talk page message will notify you. Would you support a draftify at this AfD? Please read the discussion. Also, you can probably ignore the message above, it was added by a now blocked user. - How is this neutral?

    • It is not neutrally worded.
    • Does not have a neutral title.
    • You haven't used the "Please see" template. (If you had done so, it would have been neutrally worded.)
    • You did not leave a note here about the notification you gave to Shewasafairy.

    The Nation (Nigeria) and GQ

    The regular articles and the sponsored articles look exactly the same and no viewer would know that they are sponsored unless you give them the URL that you just found. No reputable news media would do this. Apart from that, The Nation (Nigeria) is accused of spreading fake news stories. How comfortable is it to find the GQ source back online exactly when the AfD was relisted after the DRV and with the updated date? These are all undisclosed paid articles. Most of the keep votes are accounts that are 1 - 8 months old with very little AfD experience( i.e. 0 in-depth analyzed votes on other AfDs)). Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 13:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Jeraxmoira and Usedtobecool. Not convinced the sources are strong enough to meet WP:N.- KH-1 ( talk) 03:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment – Because this might be a borderline one, I would support a draftify, and keeping it there until there's better coverage. TLA ^tlak 16:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.