Talk:Neal Jones

Can someone tell me why this guy is notable? I'm not outright saying he's not but there's been no attempt to substatiate that he is. Removing the speedy delete tag because of "claimed roles" is a bit silly but I'll let it go. But the vast majority of his "claimed roles" are as an extra. There's nothing wrong with being a prolific extra but it hardly makes someone notable. There are hundreds of people who have made careers as professional extras but that doesn't make them notable.

• Listing websites for places he has been (where the website makes not mention of him) does not prove notability.
• Including an IMDB entry does not make someone notable - someone who has had one minor role can get an IMBD entry.
• I've googled him; sure he exists but that's not notable. Please see
  WP:ENN
  .

I can accept the article shouldn't be speedily deleted but can someone please find something to substantiate notability?

Stalwart111 (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not know anything at all about submitting for Wikipedia. I am not even sure if this is the proper place to respond to your messages. I saw both this one, and your other one. As for your concerns in regards to Neal's "notability", there is a very big difference between an "extra" and a "guest star" or "co star". Several of the roles mentioned in the profile, were extended roles, over the course of a season or the lifespan of a series, which results in a fan base. The fact that there is a fan base, especially for shows like Generation Kill and Rescue Me, is the reason for the entry - because they ask for it. Not to mention that Dirty Dancing in itself is one of the biggest movies of all time, and he had a supporting role in the film. None of the items on IMDB would qualify as an "extra". All of them are through the Screen Actors Guild or AFTRA, and all the theatre through Equity. If you are a fan of professional theatre, then the specific shows mentioned to you would make sense, as world premiers and Tony winning shows are a big deal, not to mention performing on Broadway in general as opposed to amateur or community theatre. Neal also coaches some of the biggest names in film and TV including, Chris Noth and Al Pacino. As a result of both his acting resume and his coaching clientele, people have asked for a wikipedia entry to be in place. Not one of the mentioned IMDB entries would qualify by any union or pay standard as "extra" work. If you would like to advise on how the entry can be revised to be suitable for publication, I would greatly appreciate it. I am on the verge of having a baby anytime now, so I am not checking this as often as I would usually, but I will follow through with it if you can politely suggest how to fix it. Thank you. tattoocowgirl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tattoocowgirl (talk • contribs) 03:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read the
  reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the individual. Under the latter, he needs to have "significant roles" in multiple notable productions (the closest he comes is Rescue Me and Generation Kill and based on his billing the roles don't appear to qualify as "significant"), a large fan base or significant "cult" following (I don't see any evidence of that) or made a unique or innovative contribution to a field of entertainment (doesn't appear to be the case). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Under wikipedias guidelines and by any reasonable definition and understanding of the guidelines, Neal Jones is notable. He does adhere to the entertainer guidelines, it asks for multiple contributions, and does not specify a number of such. Under notability, IMDB is often the ONLY confirmation of work for dozens of actors, many of whom you have wiki entries for, with far less to show for themselves. The stage work alone, being on Broadway, in major companies (GLSF) both as a performer and director, far exceeds the entertainer guidelines, as well as his role in Dirty Dancing and definitely the two you mentioned, Generation Kill and Rescue Me. If Wiki has a specific number in mind, it should rephrase "multiple" to something more specific. Again, the notability definition is vague as well. Most entertainers use IMDB and personal websites that are managed by professionals as the go to referral sites for validity. By what standard are you defining"billing" because unless you are the regular lead in a show, Co Star or Guest Star are the respectable and notable places to be as the plot now centers around you - as is the case in most of the shows. See the Criminal Minds episodes "The Fox" and "Outfoxed" or Sex and The City.... the plot would not exist without the characters that Neal played in those episodes. It almost seems as if you are asking for proof via magazine articles, etc. Would you prefer that I scan in photos from a People magazine shoot 25 years ago about D. Dancing or a New York Times review from a Broadway show that ran in the 80's? The absence of tabloid attention does not negate the importance of the work or the fan base that has been generated as a result of the work. Let's be reasonable and if there are specific missing pieces, name them. If not, and the definition remains the same, then it looks like someone needs to go through and do a sweep of Wikipedia because there are a lot, A LOT of "entertainers" on here with far less to show - and I know them personally - so this is not petty. Talk about "prolific extras" - unless Wiki wants to start a category for just that, you may want to consider consistency in the standards in which the articles are edited and deletion considered. If the only thing Neal did was the supporting role on Dirty Dancing, it would still be "notable" because of the movies notoriety. That movie, and his character, do qualify as "cult following" as does "G. Kill" and you could even say his character on "Rescue me". He most definitely meets both the entertainer and notability guidelines if anyone at all that knows entertainment, is reviewing resume. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tattoocowgirl (talk • contribs) 15:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end of them ~~~~ Being the antagonist in a single episode of a TV series does not constitute a "significant role" under
  Wp:WAX. Each article stands and falls on its own merits. If there's a performer you feel shouldn't have an article you can request that it be deleted. IMDB and personal websites are not considered reliable sources for establishing notability, the former because anyone can contribute content and the latter because it is self-published. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is completely unproductive. You are just arguing points that have no resolution. You are not in any position to prove or disprove any fan base whatsoever, your doubts are speculative. You are for some reason being extremely antagonistic about this entry. Are you freelance or who else do I contact through Wikipedia to discuss this? All of your arguments over the entry are really mute considering the fact that no one is actually defining "significant" role or "significant" series. Unless you are receiving the fan mail or signing the autographs, I question your method for determining the relevance of his roles or of the entry. Again, please tell me what you do want to see rather than continuously putting down the actor and the content of his work. If IMDB is not considered a reliable or reputable source for actors, then what is - IMDB is the largest and most concise site for exactly that purpose, and unless you are actually in show business, or working for SAG, a agency or another union, I challenge you to challenge me on this topic. Please tell me what needs to change, what "reliable" sources you are looking for, and who else I need to speak with in regards to this article. Thank you. Tattoocowgirl (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Look. I get that you're really overly invested in this person and his career, but your personal entanglements with them do not constitute justification for this article. I've explained what is required to demonstrate that Jones is notable. Reliable sources are books, magazines, newspaper articles, television interviews, etc. that offer significant coverage of the subject. If you don't like the notability guidelines, go to
  assume good faith on the part of other editors. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Further, you might like to see
  WP:OWN - only you can confirm if this guideline is relevant but if it Iis I would suggest you go about contributing to Wikipedia in a very different manner. Wikipedia has very specific guidelines which all editors must comply with. It is the responsibility of other editors to uphold them. There are no Wikipedia "managers" (there are admins who are responsible for maintaining order) to whom you can complain. Concensus is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and these have been developed after years and years of cooperative contributions and discussions. If you read the relevant guidelines you would soon realise this article is about a non-notable subject as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You would also likely realise that almost every single one of your arguments has been made before, dealt with, discussed and dismissed. You can disagree but that's not a basis for notability. If you want the guidelines changed, get involved and start talking about the ways in which you think they should be amended. But I strongly sugest you read some of the guidelines before trying to argue a case for the notability of a subject multiple editors say is simply not. Your statement, "Under wikipedias guidelines and by any reasonable definition and understanding of the guidelines, Neal Jones is notable", is simply not correct. Feel free to cite guidelines to suggest otherwise. Also, had you read the guidelines you would realise that the onus to "prove or disprove" a fan base is on the original editor, not those who challenge the article becuase it has not sources. If you claim something is true, prove it with sources, not statements of personal opinion. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It appear the Subject of this artilce does fail notability guidelines, I reccomend that this artilce be upgraded to Speedy Deletion as non-notable. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is not eligible for speedy deletion, but the PROD is set to expire tonight and the article can be deleted at that time. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to add these as I can, but here is a ref from the Boston Globe......http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/blog/2008/07/_did_you_watch.html Tattoocowgirl (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC) And here is the New York Sun............http://www.nysun.com/arts/generation-kill-introducing-the-latest-generation/81653/ Tattoocowgirl (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Here is NJ.com - a star ledger...............http://www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.ssf/2008/07/generation_kill_get_some_polic.html Tattoocowgirl (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC) This is Irish Connections, a worldwide Irish magazine in ref to his directorial credits.............http://www.irishconnectionsmag.com/archives/v1i1/36.htm Tattoocowgirl (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC) New York Theatre Critics Review volume 55...............http://books.google.com/books?id=vTtaAAAAMAAJ&q=neal+jones+irish+arts+center&dq=neal+jones+irish+arts+center&hl=en&ei=mqNNTLaCMIK78gaU0owz&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA Tattoocowgirl (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC) New York Times Theatre Reviews / NY Times 99 - 2000.........http://books.google.com/books?id=CcVciO--PkgC&pg=PA413&dq=neal+jones+irish+arts+center&hl=en&ei=CqRNTJWZBIOB8gaCpIk5&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=neal%20jones%20irish%20arts%20center&f=false Tattoocowgirl (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Theatre World volume 57.....http://books.google.com/books?id=0dj_6Sgk_cAC&pg=PA133&dq=neal+jones+irish+arts+center&hl=en&ei=CqRNTJWZBIOB8gaCpIk5&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=neal%20jones%20irish%20arts%20center&f=false Tattoocowgirl (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC) The Best Plays of 94-95 Book pg 354.....http://books.google.com/books?id=1vvrAAAAMAAJ&q=neal+jones+irish+arts+center&dq=neal+jones+irish+arts+center&hl=en&ei=CqRNTJWZBIOB8gaCpIk5&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBw Tattoocowgirl (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC) TVDVDRERVIEWS>COM Rescue Me Season 2 dvd reviews.http://www.tvdvdreviews.com/rescueme2.html Tattoocowgirl (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC) TV Guide Cast and Guest Cast credit page for Rescue Me....http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/rescue/cast/191744 Tattoocowgirl (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC) TVSA / South African TV Authority......http://www.tvsa.co.za/actorprofile.asp?actorID=9777 Tattoocowgirl (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC) THR / The Hollywood Reporter..http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3i10d8acfd8966c363270dc913c8880362 Tattoocowgirl (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it looks like ShelfSkewed has done a significant amount of work trying to address some of the concerns raised when this article was first created. Adding some references is certainly an improvement on the original article.

However, a quick review of the sources suggests most would struggle to fit into

I can only suggest that most of these should be deleted. Which leaves us with one passing mention, a review of a production he directed and his IMDB listing. Sorry guys, this one's looking like still being in trouble. Stalwart111 (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to some of this: I would like to point out first that, when it comes to print references, URLs may be provided for convenience, but they are not necessary to make a source legitimate. Hence, the objections to 2, 3, and 5 above are, in short, irrelevant. And second, the blog entries in items 9 and 10 above are not from random home viewers; they are the blogs of the respective newspapers' actual professional TV critics,[1][2] and so may be considered reliable sources, per

Wikipedia:VERIFY#Newspaper and magazine blogs.--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Please remind me where it says exactly how many references need to be on the page? I cannot seem to find an exact number. Tattoocowgirl (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't; it says multiple so your original 1 obviously falls short. I see from your link-spam that you still haven't bothered to do any reading. Your loss.

With reference to Skewed; your notes about 2 and 3 make sense - probably best just to remove the links then, so they are cited as written refs. 5 - I said tenuous and it is but that doesn't make it unacceptable.

As for 9 and 10; happy to accept the credentials for the two critics - I apologise for misunderstanding their standing at their respective papers. Might be worth linking their names to those pages your provided - not necessary but, as you can see, might be helpful. That said, one of those references doesn't really focus on him - it's about the show. Remember,

WP:NOTINHERITED

. The other does and should be kept.

Like I said to begin with, you've done a significant amount of work and it's a big improvement on the original argument, "Me and my friends like him so he's notable". I still think it's a struggle butwe've certainly made progress. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened across this fine actors profile. I had the pleasure of seeing a few staged theatrical productions Mr. Jones had directed in NYC. I was very shocked to come across the rude and impetuous rubbish “Stalwart111” posted on Mr. Jones' discussion page.

First, Wiki rules specifically note to all users “Remember to be polite, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks and be welcoming to newcomers.” ....Stalwart111, you have been laughably impolite - with personal attacks on Mr. Jones' well-established career.

I am pleased Mr. Jones' Wikipage is supported by "WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers".

In retrospect to Mr. Jones' "contributions", I suppose art and criticism do not fare well with eachother (aka: the eye of the beholder). My suggestion to users reading my post? Rent a few of the listed movies Mr. Jones’ has contributed to.

My opinion is no matter how big or small the role, Mr. Jones always delivers brilliant moments. How wonderful that these moments have been captured forever on film for everyone to see!

SeeGreenie (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SeeGreenie. My "attacks" were technical discussions with other authors - some of whom were new, didn't understand the technical measures Wikipedia has in place for dealing with new articles, sources and context and sought to remedy this by making technically irrelevant and emotive arguments which did not address the fundamental issues this article had when it was first created. My issues with this article related to its technical validity as an article - not to Mr Neal's ability or personal credibility. All articles on Wikipedia are, according to Wikipedia's own rules, supposed to be supported by independent citations and if they are not (in the case of articles about individual people) they fail notability guidelines. Any editor has the right to question the technical veracity or independence of cited sources. When this article was first created, it had none. When some were provided, most did not meet guidelines. That is the context and the extent of this debate.

The debate over this article, against citation guidelines, lasted for weeks without any of the original authors making any attempt to bring the article in line with Wikipedia's requirements. I make no apology for restating those guidelines multiple times.

You need to understand the distinction between an argument about the article on technical grounds and an argument about the individual on emotional grounds. I'm sure Mr Neal is a fine actor and a fine person - that is not what this technical debate was ever about. The editors in question claimed to understand the guidelines but proactively refused to partake in their implementation. It is no surprise, then, that I and other editors took steps to either have the article brought up to standard or deleted. Again, not one part of that process relates to Mr Neal or his ability.

Stalwart111 (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]