This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Awards Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

I removed the bare list of awards from the article, and Edwardx reinserted it. It seems to me we give a much better impression of the company with the awards that appear in the previous paragraphs where they are critiqued. The bullet-pointed list almost looks legitimate. I think it should be removed, or failing that, condensed into a single sentence with a list in. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strengthened the lead to be more explicit. I don't think anyone can be in doubt about the nature of their business who has read the whole article. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but could it not still read "Their awards include the Acquisition International M&A Awards, the AI Global Excellence Awards, the AI Hedge Fund Awards ..." ? That would make it take up less space and give less prominence to a list of bogus awards. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I wrote the list but I assume the point is how long it is. If it was in prose form, wouldn't someone just convert it to a list for readability? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would add a comment asking people not to do that, which might even work? It's not like the article sees many edits. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't stop you but it might make for an odd paragraph. Why don't you try? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The latest AfD closed as no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AI Global Media, so it's appropriate to retain the tag, until such time that a consensus develops that the subject meets GNG. It's too early to re-nominate, while the tag alerts editors that more work on the article is needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia refers to vanity awards as those whereby the honorees are required to pay to win. AI Global Media do not charge to win an award. All winners receive free of charge items. Base on this can we remove the reference to vanity awards from the AI Global Media page? Kathall1980 (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says a vanity award is "an award in which the recipient purchases the award and/or marketing services to give the false appearance of a legitimate honor", in other words, if the granting of the award is closely linked to the payment for some other form of marketing or services by the giver then it remains a vanity award. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: A relevant, in-depth discussion about this has taken place here. Plinuxs (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedia editors, my name is Kieran. I recently started working for AI Global Media as a web developer and have been asked to update our online presence as a whole to better reflect the business as it is in 2018.

I've noticed that the information about the business on this page is using data that is a couple of years old now, with most of the information dating from 2016. Looking at the history on this page and the vanity awards page I can see that previous AI Global employees have tried to modify pages by removing sourced articles and the like. Because of this I thought it best I mention my intentions and confirm that I am ok to do this before I continue.

I would be looking to update the company's financial information and number of employees as well as update the list of magazines and publishing platforms to match the current list.

Please let me know if I'm ok to do this? AI Global Kieran (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AI Global Kieran, the best way for you to proceed is to propose fully cited changes here on the talkpage. Edwardx (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardx, thank you very much for the quick reply. I will follow your advice. I am getting sources for the financial information now, but for the time being the full list of brands should read as follows:

The source to cite for this is the AI Global Media LTD website's Brands page. https://www.aiglobalmedialtd.com/brands/. AI Global Kieran (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the magazines, that's not contentious. I have already done the financials. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I trust your judgement on this, Philafrenzy; I want to suggest to AI Global Kieran, however, that such contributions should generally not rely on primary sources and to always seek reliable third party sources where possible, but also that not all information is suitable to be included merely because it exists. We risk otherwise transforming the article in an advertorial. --Serge10duke (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for updating the financial information, Philafrenzy! Serge10duke, I understand. I am not looking to add new information to the page or editorialise, merely to update the information that is already present on Wikipedia to be up to date.

Speaking of which, I've noticed two other things that aren't quite accurate. Firstly at the top of the page it states that 'The awards made by AI are accompanied by publicity in the online magazines published by the company paid for by the winner.', however this is unclear and seems to suggest that paying for articles in the magazines is mandatory. Winners do not receive publicity in the online magazines by default, only on the website (on the award pages' winners sections, which link to their own winner's page). Appearing in the magazines is a marketing option offered to our winners, along with numerous other marketing products such as website adverts, trophies, etc, but these products are offered to allow winners to promote their win, and are not a prerequisite to receiving the award itself. I'm afraid that once again I only have a first party source for this, but we explain our process in some detail on the awards pages of our new LUXlife and Wealth and Finance sites, such as https://www.lux-review.com/lux_awards/winter-sports-awards/ (under 'How It Works') and https://www.wealthandfinance-news.com/awards/finance-awards/ (under FAQs). Would it be possible to correct this sentence in order to remove this inaccuracy?

Secondly the magazines section lists that we 'publish a number of online magazines using the issuu platform'. We have recently moved to hosting the magazines on our own servers using a program called Flippingbook, though we do still host some older issues on Issuu. I'm not sure if that's important enough to warrant updating, but I thought I would mention it.AI Global Kieran (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AI Global Kieran, that statement doesn't seem to me to suggest that paying for articles in the magazines is mandatory, rather that the awards are accompanied by publicity for which the winner pays for. It refers to the business model, not the actual platform where the winning is advertised or the conditions involved in the payment. I don't agree that it's in the article's interest to change the sense of that statement without also mentioning why AI awards are considered vanity awards. --Serge10duke (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serge10duke The sentence says that the awards 'are' accompanied by publicity in the online magazines, not that they 'can be', that is the part that I feel is misleading. The sentence indicates that it is always the case, when it is not, as I explained. I'm sorry if you thought I was trying to debate what is and is not a vanity award, I'm not on here trying to do that. I am just trying to make sure the information on the page about the company is correct, and this part is not correct. To be perfectly clear, all I am suggesting is changing the sentence to 'The awards made by AI can be accompanied by publicity in the online magazines published by the company, paid for by the winner', which seems pretty reasonable to me? It doesn't change the tone of the article, just corrects the inaccuracy by changing a single word. Would that be ok? AI Global Kieran (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the lead slightly. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Philafrenzy, that is much clearer! The only thing left is the issuu thing I mentioned above, but I don't know if that's considered important enough to bother updating?

EDIT: Oh you've changed it. That's everything! Thank you everyone for your assistance. AI Global Kieran (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Wikipedia editors. I just wanted to ask another question. We've had a couple of people coming on to vandalise the page recently (thank you to EdwardX and Philafrenzy for reverting those changes). If all they're doing is posting abuse am I okay to revert their changes or would you prefer to leave it to you guys? AI Global Kieran (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given your conflict of interest it's probably best that you don't edit the page at all. There are several people watching it. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Edwardx (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. Thank you guys for keeping watch on it! AI Global Kieran (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Our logo has changed as of today. As you stated it's best for me not to edit the page, I haven't replaced it, but I thought I'd mention it here.AI Global Kieran (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I suppose it has to be reverted, calling a scam a scam is hardly "abuse". Pinkbeast (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]