Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psyop (company)

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. A large number of sources were presented here, but there's disagreement about whether the sources presented here, in the article, and/or found via other searches, meet

WP:SIGCOV. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Psyop (company)

Psyop (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable production company. Reads more like a puff promotional piece than anything else. Does not meet

WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. Thank you! [Edit: The article was created by User:Justincone's single-purpose account, back when he worked for Psyop.]—Unforgettableid (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hollywood Reporter verifies that Psyop has won two Annie Awards in the Best Animated Television/Broadcast Commercial category: once in 2012 at the 39th Annie Awards for "Twinings 'Sea'" and once in 2016 at the 43rd Annie Awards for "Coca-Cola 'Man and Dog'".

    Ad Age notes that "Psyop easily could be dubbed the Pixar of the spots world, given its reputation as the go-to shop for top notch animation and design."

    Fast Company calls Psyop "a top animation studio".

    Design Week says Psyop is "the New York-based studio that is making TV animation as fresh as the best work coming out of London".

    Esquire notes, "It's the same formula New York-based Psyop has perfected on dozens of other campaigns that have generated millions of views around the world: Come up with a crazy concept first, then worry about inventing the technology to make it happen."

    Cunard (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisted to give time for editors to consider whether sources provided by Cunard establish notability (or not).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Dear @Cunard: First, you found eleven sources. In the collapsed "Sources with quotes" box, you provided long quotes from these sources. Below the box, you provided more-concise summaries of some of these long quotes. Okay. Unfortunately:
Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ A feature story is usually a longer article where the writer has researched and interviewed to tell a factual story about a person, place, event, idea, or issue. Features are not opinion-driven are more in-depth than traditional news stories.
  2. ^ "Trade magazines: Still a marketer's best friend?". Inprela Communications. 30 May 2017.
  • Keep on the basis of the Annie Awards. I am not convinced that we can use the nominations for these awards as proof of notability , but these were actual awards. I'm not sure a company producing one award winning production is proof of the company's notability , but having two distinct ones is certainly sufficient proof. There is no need to look for comments in other sources when we have such evidence.
As for sources, the Hollywood Reporter , LA Times, and Variety are the best sources for the industry. I'd certainly trust the HR over Esquire. Businesses frequently use all types of publications to increase their reliability. I know of no publication that is altogether free from it, especially for features. Fast Company is I think sometimes but not always reliable for notability. As for news asdistinct from features, that the HR reported the prizes is fully reliable evidence. There are undoubtedly other sources for this, including the official list, but HR is sufficient. There's no need for a quote farm to deonstrate a plain fact.
The other material in Ad Age is substantial, and I think goes somewhat beyond puffery, and supports notability But quotes calling something a "top company" is not evidence of its notability, no matter where published--it shouldn't be taken as a formal judgment.
As a more general comment: Even when I disagree with his conclusions, I find Cunard's style of arguments in general to be very helpful, and the need to deal with the sources in detail a reasonable challenge. A detailed analysis of sources is usually the best approach in discussions where determining independent and substantial is critical to the result. Using the information is a matter of judgment. In any honestly disputed case, I could generally find a plausible arguement for interpreting a source to be reliable or not reliable, or evaluating a subject as notable or not notable--the key word in this sentence is plausible. For exactly the same sources, reasonable people can come to different conclusions. The only way of making the actual judgement is consensus on the interpretation. Just like me, Cunard is sometimes, but not always correct. To find AfDs where he was not supported by the consensus is just as easy as to do the same with me, or with anyone who frequently comments here on non-obvious instances. The only way to be always right at AfD is to only comment at the trivial. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Dear @DGG:
You make lots of good points, including about Cunard's source-finding often being helpful.
In general, in cases like Psyop's, where a paid editor has created the Wikipedia puff piece, I start by assuming that it's best not to have Wikipedia cover the company at all. This is because the article may keep attracting more spam edits for decades, and it's very possible that there will never be enough watchers to catch and revise all of these spam edits. So, I start out with the presumption that the company is non-notable, and then I seek proof of non-notability.
I do accept it as true that Psyop has won two Annie Awards in the Best Animated Commercial category.
Perhaps it's true that Annie Awards for Best Animated Feature can be used to help prove notability. But perhaps Annie Awards for Best Animated Commercial, which are more-minor Annies, do _not_ help prove notability.
A) There isn't much well-sourced content in the actual Psyop article. The "Awards" table is completely unsourced, the "Original Productions" section is poorly-sourced, and the rest of the article is a mere stub. Perhaps we should temporarily delete or draftify the article until someone bothers writing some better-sourced content?
B)
WP:GNG
suggests that significant coverage in independent reliable sources is proof of notability, but does not suggest that awards can be proof of notability. Do you believe that, if you ignore the Annie Awards, and if you look only at the Ad Age and Cunard's other sources, Psyop is still notable?
Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the subject fails
    ) 09:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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.