Talk:Creative Artists Agency/Archives/2012

CAA clients

Should this be the CAA list or should there be a separate list somewhere? The article seems long with all those names added. Burrito wrapper (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

seeing there were three types of this:

1) a tiny list in the header
2) an unweildy massive list that looked sloppy and non-encyclopedic
3) a list of represenatative notable clients by industry (film, tv, music, etc).  

Third one seems right. I will pop it in from the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.96.40.134 (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

tone is weird

this reads like a weird advertisement or e! true hollywood story. it obviously needs to be fixed, but i worry some caa goon would come and revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.133.211 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this article needs some major cleanup and the addition of citations. The description of it as an "E! True Hollywood Story" is apt. Metromoxie (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone is gutting this article

We should definitely continue to improve tone towards an encyclopedic one. OTOH, whatever this/these AOL user/s is/are doing is wrong -- from changing the company name to the "Creative Jew Company" to removing most of the article including references sections. I am going to revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.96.40.134 (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of being encyclopedic, what's with the lists of random clients? Specifically, how are any of those people notable within the context of the article (i.e. with regard to CAA), and where are the references to prove it? (WP:NOTDIR applies here.) Barring specific and verifiable reasons for inclusion, each entry in those lists should be removed. TheFeds 03:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Have created references that are properly referenced (eschewed internet anonymous user sources such as IMDB, many of which circularly derive data from wikipedia). Regarding "notable within the contexct of the article" I see it from the opposite perspective: the clients, being notable, make CAA notable. CAA's notability is precisely derived from the notability of their clients in proportion to theirs. CAA doesn't make anything or accomplish anything except through these clients. Ergo listing the clients defines CAA's notabilty. Correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.222.179 (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)