Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Jin (entrepreneur): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:14, 17 March 2024

Justin Jin (entrepreneur)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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 ^afairy 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]
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 ^afairy 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 ^afairy 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 ^afairy 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	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
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	Balanced enough discussion	✔ Yes
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}}.

TLA^tlak 16:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^afairy 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]
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]

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 *:::::Can you point to the policy that says "independence of interviews depend on the actual content"? [[WP:PRIMARY]] says {{tq|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. [[User:Jeraxmoira|Jeraxmoira🐉]] ([[User talk:Jeraxmoira|talk]]) 07:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 *::::::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 {{tq|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: {{tq|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. <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:darkgreen">[[User:I'm tla|<span style="color:white">'''TLA'''</span>]]</span><sup>[[User talk:I&#39;m tla |<span style="color: grey">tlak</span>]]</sup> 01:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
+*:::::::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". [[User:Jeraxmoira|Jeraxmoira🐉]] ([[User talk:Jeraxmoira|talk]]) 06:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 *'''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. [[User:CaptainBottle|<span style="color:#6495ed;font-size:15px;text-shadow:1px 2px 2px gray;">'''Captain'''</span>]]<span>[[User talk:CaptainBottle|<big>&#9742;</big>]]</span> 10:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:CaptainBottle|CaptainBottle]] ([[User talk:CaptainBottle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CaptainBottle|contribs]]) has been [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] to this discussion. </small>
 *:[[User:CaptainBottle|CaptainBottle]]: [[WP:INTERVIEWS]] is an '''essay''', not a policy or guideline. [[User:Jeraxmoira|Jeraxmoira🐉]] ([[User talk:Jeraxmoira|talk]]) 10:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)