Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher McDonald (booking agent)

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. ✗plicit 15:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher McDonald (booking agent)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. All significant coverage is in promotional blogs. Mostly trivial mentions. A Google search returns nothing except his LinkedIn and for-hire pages.

The article claims he won an Emmy "as a Talent producer and Talent Booker" at the 2024 Emmys. He did not. The citation (p. 31) attached is for the actor Christopher McDonald's win in 2022, a completely different person. In reality, he was a "talent producer", one of many minor credits, for an Emmy-awarded show.

It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON because apparently he has been cast for Superman (2025), although lots of sites claim that it was the other Christopher McDonald so I can't verify that. C F A 💬 13:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Washington, D.C.. C F A 💬 13:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nommed; no evidence of notability, per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE (although I'm not even sure the latter applies here). This was accepted at AfC expressly to give the community a chance to offer its views, so this AfD doesn't contradict that acceptance, quite the opposite. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No significance should be attached to my acceptance at AFC. My acceptance rationale is stated on the article's talk page. I intend to maintain a steadfastly neutral stance in this discussion. I do not anticipate that the acceptance will astonish anyone who has read the article talk page comment. You may draw the conclusion that I am surprised that this nomination has taken so long. I will be interested to see the outcome 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AFC Helpdesk discussion is relevant background reading, though can have no bearing on this discussion per se since the article must be judged on its current state and merits. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: To clarify the Superman bit, it is indeed this Christopher McDonald who has been cast in the film (as evident by his social media posts and initial trade reports correcting their false info pointing to the other McDonald), although since he is a newcomer actor, he does not appear notable for his other work as a talent agent and a TV producer in his own right just yet. I believe this article could merit some worth after the Superman film has released and his role is more known, so I think sending this to the draftspace in case other editors wish to flesh it out more there could be beneficial. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it's your prerogative to !vote as you see fit, but just to say that this spent a month in drafts, and was declined no fewer than six times at AfC. It was then accepted largely to let the wider community decide its fate, so sending it back to drafts seems like a retrograde step to me. Also, that Superman film is still a year out, and there's no guarantee that it will establish notability for this actor. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote is in accordance with WP:PRESERVE. I do not believe this is where the nuclear option is required as the whole purpose of the draftspace is for developing article with the potential for mainspace inclusion. There is no harm in letting it move to draftspace and for further work to be done there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts. here is the logic I followed-
This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or -
4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I thought that based on category 3- applies to him as the producer of 5 season of the major TV Show Kelly Clarkson. There is no difference between what type of producer this category applies to. The show Kelly Clarkson - is in fact "such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". And it is not a "single episode", but 5 seasons. Again, his work as producer is recognized by Emmy nomination and Emmy award with the Kelly Clarkson.

I'd like to hear if you disagree. But there is a category for producers.

This is the main criteria I used, and we discussed with the editors.

J2009j (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPRODUCER (The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.) does not apply here. He did not create The Kelly Clarkson Show and he did not co-create The Kelly Clarkson show, and even if somehow being a "Talent Producer and Talent Booker" is considered "creating" the work, his role was certainly not "major" as required by the guideline. Also note that: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included (i.e. if they meet the guideline, they likely have received enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to write an article; in this case, he has not). C F A 💬 15:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J2009j: the way this is indented, it looks like a reply to my comment, but I presume it isn't? Perhaps you could outdent it appropriately, probably to the main level. And please prefix it with an appropriate label per WP:DISCUSSAFD, so that when it comes to closing this discussion it is clear what your intention was. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't. I just do not seem to see a way to leave a separate comment here. J2009j (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. C F A 💬 16:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong here. I understand your reasoning. As someone from the related field, I can confirm he indeed co-created. He is the part of the founding team of the show, along with other people nominated for Emmy with the show. For this reason i specifically added a source with all over 150 or so episodes of Kelly Clarkson show with credits. Do you know what is the role of the " talent producer/booker" for the talk show? To bring all the guests who are coming to the shows, for every episode. It does not qualify to "played a major role"?

He was invited by Kelly Clarkson to do the show with her team. That is discussed in many of the podcasts. I believe WP:NPRODUCER was created for producers, those who are working on protects behind the public eye.

The fact that the person worked on all 5 seasons, and did not bothered to even go talk about it somewhere, so it was hard for me looking for sources also speaks about it. This is how the majority of producers are. There was a 2 hours long discussion about him on youtube. It was the first thing I saw a few years ago about this individual. It was so interesting. I was surprised there is no wikipedia page. Do not remember how it was called, but there is similar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5TrrSks77E J2009j (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sure WP:NPRODUCER does not apply here. There is no coverage on how his role was "major" or how he "co-created" the show. You are just speculating. Regardless, there is not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to write an article, as evidenced by the multiple misleading statements and incorrect citations. C F A 💬 16:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please, see my answer above :For this reason i specifically added a source with all over 150 or so episodes of Kelly Clarkson show with credits. Do you know what is the role of the " talent producer/booker" for the talk show? To bring all the guests who are coming to the shows, for every episode. It does not qualify to "played a major role"? This does not sound like a major role to your personal opinion? I believe it is not objective then.

What are the misleading sources you mean? I added the correct file from the Emmy website with the name of the people from the show. I believe that is what we discussed, and you pointed out to me if was some old file. J2009j (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any action except deletion or retention. DoubleGrazing makes precisely the correct point. I accepted it so that the community could and would make a clear decision about it. Returning it to draft is a pointless exercise after multiple reviews declining it. Let the community decide clearly, please. Trailblazer101 I invite you to come down on one side of the fence or the other. He either passes WP:BIO or he does not. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already made my !vote and I see no harm in moving to the draftspace to allow editors a chance to work on it some more. If this figure does become notable, then there would be content history available to go off of. If the draft is not worked on for a period of six months, it would be deleted anyway. I see this as a fitting compromise solution and nothing serious enough to vote for a full deletion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see why this was accepted at AfC only to be decided on here, it either meets notability or it doesn't. This seems silly. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should not have been accepted for AfC because it does not pass notability and still has major issues with the citations. Draftspace is where this type of content should be worked on if desirable, not in the mainspace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "silly". AfC is not, nor should it be, the ultimate arbiter of what gets published; the community is. AfC does not aim for notability beyond reasonable doubt, it aims for better than 50% likelihood, with some inevitable error margin. And given that AfC is in most cases voluntary, there is no point in preventing publication when an author (with no COI or restrictions) is insistent. The rationale for accepting this was perfectly sound, even if the article subsequently ends up here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These sources are brief mentions or a list of credits from a tv show... I don't see notability. My search brings up nothing extra we could use either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources to be found, beyond quick mentions of his name in relation to various projects. Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I replied here regarding point #3 for producers. It does not require mega coverage. The requirement is to create or play significant role in a project. - For this reason i specifically added a source with all over 150 or so episodes of Kelly Clarkson show with credits. Do you know what is the role of the " talent producer/booker" for the talk show? To bring all the guests who are coming to the shows, for every episode. It does not qualify to "played a major role"? This does not sound like a major role to your personal opinion? I believe it is not objective then.

Do you know that none of the producer of the major American late shows have page on wikipedia because they do not care about publicity? Shows like Steven Colbert and others upon my discovery and motivation to cover this category of people. J2009j (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2009j: please don't WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. You can make your point, once, but don't need to make it in response to every !vote. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is there a way to somehow highlight this point at the begging so people can read it? I believe it is an important point. I have bios of at least 3 producers from main American talk shows never even covered by Wikipedia. This category 3# refers to specifically this type of people. I believe it was made with this purpose. If some editors do not know the roles at the talk shows- it is important to know how there are producers for the context and talent building the show, which are major roles, in addition to the host. Host like Kelly Clarkson or Steven Colbert are the only "big" public people there. For example, you on Wikipedia, keep a category for cinematographers who made a significant piece of art, or painters. J2009j (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A talent producer and booking agent are different from the executive producer or television producer roles, which are nore notable and important than arranging guests to appear on a talk show. And only highlighting 150 episodes on a single show does not mean the individual is notable for that work alone.Most talent agents do not receive a ton of coverage unless they are closer to the top, such as Bryan Lourd, Ari Emanuel, and Phil Gersh, to name a few. While his works and clients may be notable, there has not been sufficient evidence to prove McDonald himself is notable beyond his works alone. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if McDonald met WP:NPRODUCER, that is just guidance (People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards.). It is not the same as "presumed" or "inherited" notability. There still needs to be enough coverage to write and accurately source the article, which there clearly isn't. C F A 💬 19:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may be an extremely competent employee who plays a valuable internal role in making shows run smoothly, but the argument for notability is an unbelievable stretch here. Even assuming that he falls under one of the the genre-specific notability categories in which notability is likely -- and I don't subscribe to that -- the actual significant coverage of this producer is razor-thin. Draftifying it at this point would also just postpone the inevitable and soak up more editor time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to disagree. I see that there is this additional criterion. He, as the talent producer of 'The Kelly Clarkson Show,' was nominated for an Emmy and received an Emmy. His name is listed on the website for the award and nomination. It does not matter whether you like it or not, but the fact is that he has it. The names of all employees of the show are not submitted for an Emmy, but only those who play a significant role.
Any biography
- WP:ANYBIO
1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; or
3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography).
J2009j (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about whether I like or not. He's not an Emmy award nominee. He's someone who worked on the show that was nominated for an Emmy, not the awardee. This has been told to you repeatedly, in multiple places, and you haven't provided a single reliable source that suggests otherwise. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that the reliable source you provide is your simple assertion that we should trust you because you're in the industry, makes it clear that your lack of providing an actually reliable source and my inability to alternatively find a reliable source saying such, is not a coincidence. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CoffeeCrumbs reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a clear absence of substantial coverage of Christopher McDonald, and he does not meet the notability criteria for producers. Ynsfial (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2024 (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.