Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Kaler

Add links
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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Kaler

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Jamie Kaler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is a possible pass, but there is little significant coverage of him. The only sources presented on this article are his own website and IMDB, which the first is primary and the second we have an essay about using as a source. If saved, the article, save for the filmography sections, should be TNT'd. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and United States of America. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject appears to have worked quite extensively on TV, in films, and as a television host. He had a 4-year stint on My Boys, and has appeared in either main or supporting roles in several movies, including the 2021 List of a Lifetime (see this Deadline reference). There's also a CNN write-up (here), which references another film he appeared in, The Wicked. I think there's enough here to pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with your analysis as well. Jamie is listed as one of the main casts at My Boys, with the CNN write-up (despite being interview format and insufficient for GNG) referring to his role in two short paragraphs, potentially indicating this counts as a significant role per WP:NACTOR. However, the role in The Wicked is not a significant role, also shown by CNN's one-sentence mention. Further, at List of a Lifetime Jamie is just listed as one of the 12 cast members (IMHO likely not significant), further, the Deadline ref trivially mentions Jamie while listing members who joined the cast later. This IMO is not a significant role, but let's respectfully disagree. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (revised) for reasons Dflaw4 gives. Also noted is that he has 21 Self credits on IMDb, an additional indicator of notability. 5Q5|✉ 13:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck through my IMDb mention since it seems to be upsetting to the discussion. My replies below occurred before this revision. 5Q5|✉ 11:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5Q5, IMDb is not an indicator of notability. Anyone with a YouTube channel (or even without one) can create a profile of themselves calling themself an actor, writer or director. It's completely user-generated and there is no verification involved of whether information is factually accurate. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because I do not put much weight in these Keep votes, arguing that IMDb is a reliable source judging notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. WP:NACTOR states an actor is notable if they Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The actor probably had a significant role in My Boys, which is notable and has a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, I couldn't see other roles that obviously meets significant roles. On WP:GNG- unfortunately, the Deadline ref only mentions this person three times while listing the cast (non-SIGCOV). Further, the CNN ref is announcement-like with primarily quotes, and is IMO only debatably WP:SIGCOV. My WP:BEFORE search found lots of hits on News where Jamie is listed as a cast member, but these are trivial and insufficient in my opinion for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Finally, sorry but there is established consensus on WP:RSP that IMDb isn't RS and doesn't contribute to notability, see also a related RfC at RSN. One of the keep votes asserted that I've been a registered editor at IMDb for nearly 20 years. It is not like Wikipedia or social media. All content submitted to the site via a form process requires approval by staff before they publish it. Nothing is published directly by users. Even Wikipedia's own article on Amazon-owned IMDb acknowledges these points on their talk page. However, it appears that they might have neglected or didn't read WP:RSP's statement that Although certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, editors criticize the quality of IMDb's fact-checking, which is reflected by numerous discussions. Also, being a WP:EXPERT on IMDb to me shouldn't trump longstanding consensus, though let's respectfully disagree. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding the above comments about IMDb, neither of the Keep voters who have referred to IMDb has relied on IMDb itself to assert that the notability guidelines are met. 5Q5 simply referenced IMDb in passing. The point that I believe 5Q5 was making was that the subject has appeared as himself 21 times, and that's an indicator of notability—that is, appearing as oneself. It is the 21 self-credits—not the mere existence of an IMDb page—that is indicative of notability. Moresdi doesn't argue that simply having an IMDb page goes towards notability, either, but rather makes the point that the subject has a significant list of credits. Again, IMDb was only referenced in passing. Therefore, I believe that the rebuttal arguments which are being made—and which, in effect, say that the existence of an IMDb page does not go towards notability—are misdirected. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dflaw4: Apologies but I don't believe my comment is misdirected. A significant list of credits to me is irrelevant as most of them aren't significant roles but minor roles appearing in only a couple of episodes. Which of the roles in your opinion meets WP:NACTOR? Further, I've seen 5Q5 frequently only refer to IMDb in their AfD comments, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Gallagher, where they list IMDb as the only rationale, which to me is contrary to your interpretation. After Liz's query, they stated that I've been a registered editor at IMDb for nearly 20 years. It is not like Wikipedia or social media. All content submitted to the site via a form process requires approval by staff before they publish it. Nothing is published directly by users. Even Wikipedia's own article on Amazon-owned IMDb acknowledges these points, which to me is affirming IMDb is reliable. Therefore, I disagree with your interpretation, Dflaw4. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dflaw4: Note: I've left a query at User talk:5Q5, I might amend my comment after their reply. Thanks for your time and efforts to keep this article! VickKiang (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Dflaw4 (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from 5Q5: I only recently started voting in these actor/filmmaker AfDs (not inclined to going forward) so I was unfamiliar with the bias and perpetuated false assumptions about IMDb and how it actually works, since I have long experience on how it actually does. For instance, you can't add a birthdate or death date without providing strong confirmable sources. You can't create an IMDb profile for yourself and call yourself an actor or director. You can create a resume on IMDbPro, a paid service, and if that shows up on regular IMDb it indicates as such. Even Pro content has to be approved though, no direct user publishing.
IMDb FAQ: How can I provide proof that my submission is valid? Please keep in mind that we require verification of on-screen billing. In other words, we do not just want verification that you were involved in the making of a film -- we want evidence that your name appears in the main or end titles. Cast/crew call sheets, contracts, payment receipts, etc. are not evidence of on-screen billing. If you are able to prove that the credit does appear on screen (e.g., by providing a screener copy or a screen grab of the credits or similar materials), please contact us and we'll give you further instructions.
My opinion on the current IMDb is that it has improved its verification standards significantly with change of ownership (Amazon purchase) and is generally reliable with no direct publishing by users. I do not intend to change my vote in this particular AfD and if there is another vote on IMDb's reliability down the road I would appreciate a note informing me on my talk page so that I may participate. Thank you. 5Q5|✉ 11:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dflaw4: So 5Q5 really believes that IMDb is generally reliable with no direct publishing by users... would you disagree with their assessment? I was unfamiliar with the bias and perpetuated false assumptions about IMDb and how it actually works, since I have long experience on how it actually does- yourself being a WP:EXPERT on IMDb doesn't outweigh longstanding consensus. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how IMDb works in terms of publishing content. I would agree that the lists of credits you find there seem to be reliable, and IMDb is likely the starting point for most of us in these WP:NACTOR AfDs, to gauge just how much work the subject has done. But again, I don't think that was the point that 5Q5 was making. They said: "Also noted is that he has 21 Self credits on IMDb, an additional indicator of notability." I don't think the in-passing reference to IMDb ("on IMDb") was the point being made as regards notability, but rather the fact that the subject has appeared as himself in 21 TV productions. The "on IMDb" doesn't really add to the argument that was being made. 5Q5 could have simply written, "Also noted is that he has 21 Self credits, an additional indicator of notability," thereby omitting "on IMDb", and it wouldn't have changed the point they were making. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dflaw4: Thanks again for your detailed reply! 5Q5, just to clarify again would you agree to just omit the by IMDb part but still vote keep? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I know that your views on IMDb are not accurate. I go through hundreds of expiring drafts each day, many of them are autobiographies and almost everyone of them links their social media accounts and their IMDb profile. When I look at their IMDb profiles, they are inevitably listing videos they made for YouTube channels, they are not actors, writers and directors in films or TV series. Many people with IMDb profiles are not paid professionals. They use their IPhones to make videos and then call themselves "a series creator". I have also been active on IMDb for decades and no change or addition I submitted ever required verification. IMDB is user-generated and I think anyone who has more than a few subscribers on their YouTube channels has an IMDb profile for themselvse. I'm sure that there are higher standards on IMDbPro because it is a paid service but not on the regular IMDb site.
But you know, it doesn't matter what you think and what I think, on Wikipedia, IMDb is not considered a reliable source and that's what counts. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is free to register to edit at IMDb and see if I am acurately describing the submission process. If IMDb does not request confirmation sourcing (they have your email when you register) it is because they were able to verify it themselves. Notability in 2022 doesn't necessarily involve old-school theatrical films and TV shows. This is my final post in this AfD. I have voted, I'm done. 5Q5|✉ 11:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why we can't use IMDb. Anyone can submit anything. You can use it to confirm the role, but it should be cross-referenced to something else that confirms it. It's good for looking up facts, but not for sourcing here in Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you would like to argue that IMDB is a RS, WP:RSN is the correct venue. Until there is a consensus from a wide net of people, we must stick to the controlling consensus at WP:IMDB.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying the source confirming the tv show hosting job is notable, but it's confirmation of a major role on TV, which is. Semi-RS confirming a job he had (we could probably find a TV Guide listing confirming the same thing). Oaktree b (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production- to clarify are you stating that the two roles are: a) the My Boys role and b) the American Heroes Channel: America Facts VS Fiction one? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. Those are the two roles I found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. We might have different interpretations, but from Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production I personally see this as that the television show should be notable- as in it has multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources that constitute of significant coverage.
From what I see Jamie hosted American Heroes Channel: America Facts VS Fiction. While he had a significant role in the show (satisfying one part of the criteria), I don't think the show is a notable television show (the other part) as I didn't find refs demonstrating Facts VS Fiction is notable. However, if you could find more refs on the show, please ping me and I could strike my weak delete vote. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article says that he has gained fame by portraying the character Mike Callahan on the TBS comedy My Boys. Gained fame? Hmmm. The reference for that extraordinary claim is an interview with him and the link is dead. Much of this discussion is based on a misunderstanding of WP:NACTOR. Meeting a special notability guideline like that is a presumption or likelihood of notability, not a guarantee. What is required is significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic. This debate has been going on for three weeks, and nobody has been able to come up with a single source that meets that standard. The CNN source begins with Comedians are talking funny to CNN about various topics, and we offer them for laughs in this feature of CNN Comedy. It is a blend of an interview and a comedy performance, is clearly not independent and is therefore of no value in establishing notability. It is entertainment, not journalism. The bottom line is that he is a low level working actor and comedian who had a four year run as the sixth billed actor on a sitcom, but has never became notable as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen328 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: There's an archived version of that source here, but surprise surprise, it doesn't support the claim made. SmartSE (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pearson, Dan (8 November 2007), "He gets laughs, just being himself", Antioch Review
Vitello, Barbara (2 November 2007), "High seas to Hollywood Comedian Jamie Kaler trades Navy ship - for sitcom", Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL)
Lee, Luaine (11 June 2008), "Just being one of the boys is no stretch for comedy actor", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jamie_Kaler&oldid=1121022222"