Project:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Poybo Media

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. fr33k man 06:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Poybo Media[change]

Poybo Media (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

RiggedMint has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Disputed QD, Controversial Article based on edit history. Questionable notability... thoughts? RiggedMint 05:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change]

File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I've been following this company for a while since 2022, so I'll put forward that my judgement could be a little more on the positive. I work at Glacier Media, so I'm aware of the media industry landscape (as you can see from the articles I've created which relate to media, newspapers, etc.)

While it's relatively young, the company certainly meets notability. A quick Google Search brings up Forbes (both the U.S. and Mexico edition), USA Today, The International Business Times, that all go quite deep into the company, as well as some passing references like Billboard. Mashable, a highly-reputable source, even cites the company as "biggest teenager-led media company in the world", which I have included in the article to ensure that there is a clear claim for notability.

Looking at the company's own list of "in the news", It wasn't too clear that they mention the company, so I didn't include those...

The company is somewhat controversial in the sense that they have been accused of posting content that may be "fueling a sexist culture among young men". I have added that to the page. Dotdashmeredith (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment - there's a couple of red flags at a quick glance on some of the sources. The Forbes source is from their /site area, meaning it's not actually under Forbes editorial control. It's basically a self-published source. Similar issue with Mashable - it's sponsored content (see the partnership tag) which w:WP:MASHABLE flags as questionable. The USA Today is the same thing - contributor means it wasn't by USA Today staff. Useful and informative but I very much discount sources like that for considering notability. I'll try to do more digging tomorrow. Ravensfire (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Also note that the enwiki history on that article raises concerns as well - [1]. Ravensfire (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed that Dotdashmeredith has been blocked on enwiki as part of the sockfarm that has been pushing this article over there. More concerns. Ravensfire (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights. I'm unsure exactly what you mean by the contributor, but I think the other sources like MSN and Billboard for example don't say "contributor"? I also am pretty sure the Mashable "Partnership" tag means the topics, as media companies often partner with advertisers.

In response to my block on the en.wiki, that is a lesson I've learned. At first, I created the article about the founder. It was AfD'd, and I couldn't control my temper at the time, as I hate when works I spend time creating are deleted. I ended up sockpuppeting - but I originally didn't recognize it was disallowed on Wikipedia. I'm more experienced now and I've stabilized, so my temper won't get in the way. I will not sockpuppet on the Simple English Wikipedia, or any Wikipedia project. Dotdashmeredith (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

FYI - still digging into this, there's a mess of paid/sponsored articles here and my "serious focus" time has been more limited than I expected. Ravensfire (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

*Delete This article also created on English Wikipedia by the same user who created in this Simple English Wikipedia and An experienced editor Wikishoval Raised this matter on English Wikipedia.</ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/50mMidas/Archive</ref>. He is pushing all paid articles on Simple English Wikipedia which are already deleted on English Wikipedia with a strong reason of Sock Puppetry .For Example Poybo Media --Samaira89 (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Samaira89, that has already been dealt with. I am no longer nor will I sockpuppet. You have been targeting me for a while, clearly based on your contributions. I believe Samaira89 is some kind of a sockpuppet working alongside the accounts that targeted @Cyber.Eyes.2005 and me. Right after I was blocked briefly, Samaira89 reverted my RFD rapidly without good reason.

Requesting a check user. dotdashmeredith (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that Samaira89 was the first to mark this article for quick deletion without a valid reason. This was their first contribution on the Simple Wikipedia. Out of the blue. dotdashmeredith (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) Samaira89 has been blocked for abusing several accounts. Kk.urban (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

*:::i have no problem with your edits. the only problem is you are pushing all deleted articles of English Wikipedia to Simple English Wikipedia [2] The Vach [3] Samaira89 (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't merit anything. I believe they meet notability. dotdashmeredith (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. I have searched about this company and found that this company meets standard notability guidelines of Wikipedia so then no reason here for deletation of this page. --Botherder (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Botherder I have noticed you recently signed up, and your first move was to add on your talk page that you are an employee at Glacier Media. Then you commented on this article that I created. Editors, please note that I am not connected to this person. I assume this is one of those sock puppets and people targeting me recently that are trying to make it seem like I am sockpuppeting. dotdashmeredith (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Botherder has been blocked for abusing several accounts. Kk.urban (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete Some of the refs are padding. The Independent is just reporting that Bugembe studies AI. Bugembe's piece at Forbes is no longer active and was unlikely to be reliable. The main claim of notable from Mashable, "it is the largest media company in the world that is led by teenagers" is just reporting that Jin has made that claim, not that they have reported that out. One ref is citing Poybo itself. If Poybo really is all that, I would expect to see reporting on the CBC or Vancouver Sun. There is none. Promotional. --Gotanda (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Symbol comment vote.svg Comment: What are the thoughts about the Forbes Mexico staff piece, USA Today, and MSN? .., (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Ravensfire has already cover Forbes and USA today above. MSN has no real byline just Weekly Trust whatever that is. None of these refs are reliable. Gotanda (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your insights @Gotanda. I have fixed up the article, and removed some of the unreliable sources, and information I'm not as sure about.
If you look at the Mashable piece, "lays claim" means owns, so it doesn't seem like Jin made that claim, but rather Mashable deems it.

I can see that USA Today is a contributor piece. I think the source should be good for some basic facts, but Ravensfire is right about keeping it discounted.

The Forbes Mexico piece does appear to be written by a non-contributor, but Forbes itself.

In my opinion, Forbes Mexico and the Mashable piece merits notability, while the other sources like the IB Times and USA Today piece can help with basic information. dotdotcomma (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The full quote is, "Mr. Jin now lays claim to Poybo Media, the largest teenage-led media company on the globe." Meaning Jin says they are the biggest and Mashable simply accepts that. There is no evidence. The IB is irrelevant. The Billboard Mexico is very weak with a brief passing mention. If one has to go all the way to a no byline Mexico Billboard listicle for even a passing mention of what is being presented as a major Canadian media company, then there is a notability problem. --Gotanda (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I can understand your concerns about Mashable. Even if that means Jin is claiming that, and Mashable accepts it, shouldn't it meet notability?

And what about Forbes Mexico?

From what I know, this company is headquartered in Canada, but is incorporated in the UK, and operates mostly in the United States and other international countries. dotdotcomma (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I would also argue that this is not a major Canadian media company. It certainly seems quite small, but is notable due to its popularity with younger audiences - that is its claim to notability. dotdotcomma (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's an analysis I just completed of all the main sources, based on the editor notes above.

File:Symbol neutral vote.svg USA Today: Concern is that it's written by a contributor. Should solely be used for general information.

File:Symbol support vote.svg Forbes Mexico: Non-contributor article.

File:Symbol support vote.svg Mashable: Concern is that the claim "largest teenager media" in the article may be from its founder. Still, should merit notability.

File:Symbol neutral vote.svg https://web.archive.org/web/20230812033601/https://fagenwasanni.com/news/meet-justin-jin-the-16-year-old-ceo-of-poybo-media/183787/: Voted notable by a enwiki source table created by a patroller/reviewer/rollbacker. Not used here, though.

File:Symbol support vote.svg Media Trust: Seems fine. https://dailytrust.com/meet-the-billion-view-digital-upstart-and-its-16-year-old-founder/

File:Symbol declined.svgInternational Business Times: IB Times is a depreciated source. Could possibly be used for some basic information, but does not contribute to notability.

File:Symbol declined.svg Forbes: Contributor piece.

File:Symbol declined.svg Billboard (magazine): Passing mention.

File:Symbol declined.svg MSN: No byline. Also a duplicate article of Media Trust

Based on this, I think it is clear that this outcome should be File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. I expect more sources to arise in the coming months, which would cement this.

However, several tags should be placed.

Another comment: As Gotanda had concerns with the fact that the company isn't cited in Canadian media, I looked into it and it seems the company is actually headquartered in America. I've thus changed it to Canadian-American. dotdotcomma (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I File:Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support what dotdotcomma summed up. This company evidently ‘’‘meets notability’‘’. I spent an hour looking extensively into the sources used, as well as other ones not incorporated into the article.

Despite the concerns for its history on the enwiki several months, and some of the sources used being relatively weak, there is now abundant independent, reliable, coverage of this company. Gotanda’s comments about how the company isn’t a “major Canadian media company” or cited in “CBC or Vancouver Sun” aren’t valid in this case – I believe it’s a small international company, but quite well-known, especially considering its following on social media. Reaeunsla (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep i've seen this company very often online. it's quite well known among teenagers. in addition, the company has significant coverage in more than two reliable sources. i thnk Gotanda and Ravensfire were mainly concerned about its history from the enwiki, but i don't think that should apply to its notability. Tester85 (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 05:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.