Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovative Artists


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Innovative Artists

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable agency -- fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is now - some more WP:RS would certainly be nice. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 17:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 17:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * When I saw the first version, initially tagged it for speedy delete, but I thought it just reached the level of notability after talking to the author and searching the web. The best source I have found so far is Company Overview of Innovative Artists Talent and Literary Agency, Inc. in Bloomberg Buisnessweek. I now think it should be kept.
 * That's just a Bloomberg directory listing. It confers no particular notability. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I marked this for speedy one of the two times it's been deleted. What coverage is out there is routine for any talent agency; there is simply no notability above and beyond what could be expected for any other company in that industry. And given the history so far, I recommend the title be salted if the AFD results in deletion. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Variety article used as a reference already seems to meet the requirements at both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, but it is only one source so doesn't really show notability of the subject by itself. Can you explain the relevance of WP:ROUTINE, which is part of the guideline for notability of events? Is there any indication that there are more articles out there like that? VQuakr (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a few others of its stature, but nothing the cries out notability. I'm fine with deleting it.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ROUTINE indeed refers to events, but I consider it a valuable concept. When a particular entity receives coverage in a medium that is dedicated to the niche or industry that entity exists in, do we consider that to be significant coverage? My canonical example for this are technology startups. Five years ago a startup getting press was quite notable - today there exists a whole gaggle of tech rags and websites that produce routine coverage for these companies. Thus, a series of articles on TechCrunch can hardly be considered significant coverage. I would look for coverage in the New York Times, Forbes, Wired, etc. So I consider an article about a talent agency on Variety to be pretty much the same - routine. And therefore not meriting inclusion. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:14, 25 January 2013 (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.