Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Michael Tyler


 * 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

James Michael Tyler

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

Unreferenced biography of a living person arguably only known for one thing and non-notable as an actor as defined by the entertainer guideline, namely he has not "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". MickMacNee (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is unsourced, but sources can easily be found. I really don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies because although he was never a regular cast member on Friends, he was notable enough to be listed with the cast bios on NBC.com. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. i agree with the commentary above. besides, he appeared in more than one tv series and several movies.--camr nag 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The keyword is significant. The other TV roles were guest appearances, and the movies were so unremarkable, none of them have an article. I am assuming his appearances in those were also incidental, the article certainly doesn't say otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * the fact that the movies don't have an article doesn't make them less notable. many notable movies, people, etc., don't have an article. also, you can't just assume that his appearances on them were incidental, that's mere speculation.--camr nag 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a brief search after the above comment, and that was in addition to searches I did before nominating, so I am as sure as I can be bothered to be that they were not significant roles or even films. If you can show me otherwise, that would be great. Films is one of our best covered topics also, and these are pretty recent films. MickMacNee (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * here you can see he's had several appearances. i think it's relevant. also, i think his part in friends alone could have granted him notability, since "one event" would have been just one episode. he appeared 131 times.--camr nag 22:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP:ENT criteria is, multiple significant parts, Friends is one, what are the others?. You can appear for a minute on screen and get it listed in imdb, it proves nothing (I'm not even sure why you think I wasn't aware of these other appearances, they are listed in the article, never mind imdb). It is never going to be the case that 1 episode of Friends (or even 1 series as someone suggests) will be considered as the 'event' in WP:OneEvent. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * when i wrote the imdb link i wasn't implying that just for appearing in imdb you're notable. i meant that he had multiple parts. "significant" is, on the other hand, subjective. you might think those roles are not significant, some might say they are. you can't delete an article based on a subjetive motive.--camr nag 17:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'significant' is subjective, but the perception of these roles being insignificant is not helped by the article having zero references to suggest otherwise (no discussion of them in his career information, no detailing of awards etc), and by the fact it identifies them as guest roles, and by the fact the films have no articles. Seriously, anybody who disagrees with me that apart from Friends, he has had insignifcant roles, is free to try and prove otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And you don't even have to start with external sources. Using Wikipedia, you can see that the character 'Ethan' was insignificant to the show Sabrina, because neither 'Ethan' or 'Tyler' appears anywhere on that page. Which is reflected by an external search for any kind of significance. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * it makes no sense to look for relevance using wikipedia itself. again, many notable people, events, objects, brands, do not have an article, and that doesn't make them irrelevant.--camr nag 22:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why I am asking for sources, and indeed looked for them before nominating, and still did it in the above reply. MickMacNee (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The idea that playing a recurring character, appearing in more than half the episodes of the most popular American TV comedy series of its time, isn't enough to demonstrate notability demonstrates how badly flawed the phrasing of WP:ENTERTAINER is right now. At the very least, we should treat each season of the show as a separate production, which is an accurate relection of the way prime time US TV shows are produced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly a novel way of looking at it I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the comments above. What a stupid notion.... DJ 20:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are to stalk me DJ, try and give an original rationale. MickMacNee (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. He appeared in about half of the episodes of Friends, which is not exactly one event. Articles specifically about him:. So he's never had another particularly noteworthy role, but this one was for 10 years in one of the most watched series ever. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:38, 24 July 2009 (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.