Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoubleJay Creative


 * 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. Wizardman 03:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

DoubleJay Creative

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

does not meet WP:CORP, most if not all of the awards are non-notable commercial awards that you pay to get, they have no notability of its own, and they are used to inflate artificially the award list Enric Naval (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that most or all of the awards are paid commercial awards is just false. The Telly, the Emmy, the Davey and the CASE II are all merit-based awards which were awarded to DoubleJay. I don't know exactly what you mean by "inflate artificially the award list," but considering that there are multiple secondary-source articles about DJC and it's an award-winning international company with widespread notoriety in the south, I think it qualifies as having noteriety of its own (for an example of a lesser-sourced article on a similar company which was allowed to stay, see AC Entertainment). I would not have included quite so many links (esp. regarding awards) if I wasn't trying to clearly illustrate notoriety. I would be happy to revise the page if someone would offer some constructive criticism as to how to make it better fit the notoriety guidelines. However, I do NOT think that this page deserves a full deletion-- DJC is one of the fastest-growing, best-known companies in Knoxville and is worthy of inclusion. Dingstersdie (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so, Telly is prestigious enough, but the others you mention are way less prestigious than Telly. "widespread notoriety in the south" should be sourced. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument is not an argument against deletion.
 * I put in doubt the notability of all those awards, and anyone can check their pages and see how they make you pay for entering the "competition", pay if you want to receive the award, and the total lack of explaining of criteria for giving awards, and how hundreds of companies are awarded the same award. I also want to see some notable secondary sources for the notability of those awards, and I just nominated today the wikipedia article of one of those awards here Articles for deletion/Telly Awards‎, and you can see how it does not have sources since December 2006 (I assume that because there isn't any on the first place, other than companies being grateful for having been awarded).
 * The criteria for staying on wikipedia is WP:CORP, not how important the company is at their home city.
 * --Enric Naval (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and trim. See my comments at Articles for deletion/Telly Awards for context. The Telly is not notable nor based on much merit; but the repeated coverage in Knoxville News Sentinel is passable, and several other WP:RS round it out. An exceeding amount of nonencyclopedic trivia must be removed and/or recast, but there is still a core remaining after that. "First film ever to be entirely shot and edited digitally"? Cut or recast with wikilinks, the source has many more qualifiers than that. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, those are not enough. Per WP:CORP, first paragraph, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be attributable". I only found incidental mentions of lists of awards that look like regurgitations of press releases from local companies. Also notice Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance.". Worthy of being noted is not stablished by mentions deep on filler articles. the only "real" articles that actually talk of the company's notability are, when looked at, actually about how its CEO (not his company) helped build an ice rink on their city and helped raise funds for a music school . This establish notability for their CEO, not for his company. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All other sources appear to have the same problem. On the metropulse article that is on the first paragraph of the major projects section, the focus of the article is Bijou theatre, and they are only mentioning doublejay once as producer of a video of the theatre. The very first reference on the article only talks about the CEO of the company, etc, etc, etc. I see not even one link that complies with WP:CORP --Enric Naval (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you read the articles carefully enough. Certainly, there are some articles linked on the page that are filler or mention awards in passing. However, this News-Sentinel article, which you claim is ONLY about the founder-- though it is technically about him, if you read the text it is all about the company, and he was chosen for the 40 under 40 almost solely for his DJC work. In regards to the ice rink, which you claim was built by the CEO and is unrelated to the company-- that is just incorrect. Holidays on Ice was run by DJC for its first two years of operation, until a non-profit, Center City Events, was created under the umbrella of DJC to administrate it. DJC is still extremely involved in the running of and advertising for the rink. So, these articles DO establish notability. Continuing in that vein, this article is about nothing but DoubleJay Creative and the learning curve of founding a small business.  I don't think you can claim that that article doesn't establish notability-- in a creative company with few employees, obviously the founder and the projects are going to be mentioned by name in press far more frequently than, perhaps, a large company which would tend to be written about as an amorphous business. I mean, take the MetroPulse article on the Bijou. Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice..."Obviously it by itself would not be enough to establish notability-- however, it seems fairly safe to assume that DJC was both notable enough to be written about and has attracted enough notice that Jack Neely, a Knoxville historian, interviewed them without needing to explain in-depth who the company is.

I don't have time at this exact moment to continue in this vein, but I have more to say. I also plan to work on the page to cut down on the trivia, etc. I just wanted to reiterate that this page is notable and deserves to be included in the wiki, and to set the record straight on some of the errors made above. There is enough notability here to let the article stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingstersdie (talk • contribs) 18:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - article promotional in nature, rather than NPOV. Upon first reading, it seemed very close to speedy territory. I'm not addressing whether or not it complies with WP:CORP. This needs to be scraped clean and started anew if there is a fighting chance of hanging onto it. B.Wind (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I managed to save the Telly Awards article despite lack of independient RS sources by asserting notability by other means and having consensus on keeping it. In the case of this article, however, consensus is a bit lacking and the company itself is still too small, local and young to be notable. The CEO activities still seem to be its greatest claim to notability, and the coverage is only on Knoxville's local newspapers. Number of employees is too small to be notable as employer. Their activities have only local coverage, which is related to charity work engaged by its CEO, not coverage of the enterprise itself. (Actually, it seems that the CEO is more notable than the company itself). Telly Awards is 28 years old and had problems to survive a nomination based on notability. If this company is growing so fast, it will be able to achieve notability faster, and survive nomination then. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Damn, nothing but POV, not even considering problems passing WP:N. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.