236:, he is a "character" on the popular television series disguised as a sports league called "World Wrestling Entertainment." As long as material is verifiable and not defamatory, as things are in this tolerably well-footnoted piece, things should be given a pass. This is essentially self-sourced, and therein lies the rub with respect to formal notability doctrine. That is not a problem in this case, I argue, since this is essentially a character on a massively popular TV show — thus the continual efforts at recreation of a piece on the topic. Give the people what they want, that's what helps makes Knowledge great. IAR Keep.
193:. Repeatedly recreated after that, and after the original name was salted it was recreated at the new name, and escaped notice there until now. But since that was 4 years back I'm giving this a chance at a new AFD, in case there are any new independent sources that can be found to show that there is now some notability.
318:
Two such references would be all it would take to conclusively show that he passes WP:BIO. If those could be provided on the article, it would go a long was towards showing that I was incorrect in my evaluation. But until/unless they are found, then I remain of the opinion that he simply does not
227:
correspond to each of these dual functions with regards to inclusion-worthiness — and rightfully so, I think. Pop culture cruft is generally treated leniently, "hard" content strictly. Thus we have had articles on garage bands and fictional TV characters and children's books successfully defended,
443:, or talk about references being out there, but making no effort to actually provide such references to the article. The existing references in the article do not meet the three requirements for WP:RS, Reliable, Independent, and Non-Trivial. Specifically most fail the Independent part. -
228:
but articles on career journalists or professional politicians or the history of diplomatic relations of small nations bounced unceremoniously. Serious content is met with strict adherence to guidelines for inclusion, soft content is often more or less given a pass.
158:
253:- while the person is marginally notable, it still may be of interest to some readers and sought for for non-pop reasons (including research). Since the article is reasonable well written and sourced, I'd keep it.
223:- Knowledge is part serious encyclopedia, part pop culture compendium. The lines between these dual functions are blurred and officially no such differentiation is made. In practice, however, very different
152:
119:
460:. I was unable to find any independent significant coverage and none of the above keep votes have provided any sources, either, so I don't think the guy (or character) meets
359:
337:
304:
Assuming that some of these "Lots of references" are
Reliable, Independent, and Non-Trivial, it would be nice if some of them could be added to the article itself. -
190:
92:
87:
96:
416:
as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article.
79:
173:
140:
290:
400:
17:
134:
130:
473:
452:
425:
404:
373:
351:
328:
313:
294:
265:
245:
215:
202:
61:
492:
180:
40:
83:
75:
67:
448:
421:
324:
309:
198:
488:
36:
146:
440:
388:
286:
278:
396:
166:
274:
Lots of reference on 'tinternet. Clearly noteable in his field eveen if his field is pathetic.
469:
444:
436:
417:
369:
347:
320:
305:
241:
194:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
487:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
260:
57:
319:
meet the notability criteria, and should be deleted, just like the original AFD result. -
282:
230:
This is more or less the consensus of the community, albeit implicit rather than explicit.
392:
461:
212:
465:
365:
343:
237:
113:
254:
233:
53:
464:. I agree with TexasAndroid that all the above keep votes are incredibly weak.
52:. Despite Carrite's passionate plea, IAR of a BLP still needs N and RS.
211:- The subject remains non-notable, with no reliable sources available.
481:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
384:
because all of the other referees have articles as well.
109:
105:
101:
165:
189:
Non-notable wrestling referee. Originally AFDed at
232:Chad Patton's bio is pop-culture cruft. Much like
360:list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
495:). No further edits should be made to this page.
435:So far, in my sight, the Keep votes are either
338:list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions
179:
8:
358:Note: This debate has been included in the
336:Note: This debate has been included in the
191:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Chad Patton
357:
335:
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
474:12:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
453:17:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
426:22:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
405:04:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
374:01:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
352:01:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
329:20:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
314:18:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
295:17:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
266:15:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
246:15:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
216:15:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
203:15:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
62:21:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
512:
484:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
76:Chad Patton (referee)
68:Chad Patton (referee)
48:The result was
408:
391:comment added by
376:
363:
354:
341:
298:
281:comment added by
503:
486:
407:
385:
364:
342:
297:
275:
263:
257:
184:
183:
169:
117:
99:
34:
511:
510:
506:
505:
504:
502:
501:
500:
499:
493:deletion review
482:
386:
276:
261:
255:
126:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
509:
507:
498:
497:
477:
476:
455:
429:
428:
410:
409:
378:
377:
355:
333:
332:
331:
316:
269:
268:
248:
218:
187:
186:
123:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
508:
496:
494:
490:
485:
479:
478:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
456:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:WP:OTHERSTUFF
438:
434:
431:
430:
427:
423:
419:
415:
412:
411:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
383:
380:
379:
375:
371:
367:
361:
356:
353:
349:
345:
339:
334:
330:
326:
322:
317:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
273:
267:
264:
258:
252:
249:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
226:
222:
219:
217:
214:
210:
207:
206:
205:
204:
200:
196:
192:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:Find sources:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
483:
480:
457:
445:TexasAndroid
432:
418:Stuartyeates
413:
387:— Preceding
381:
321:TexasAndroid
306:TexasAndroid
277:— Preceding
271:
270:
250:
229:
224:
220:
208:
195:TexasAndroid
188:
176:
170:
162:
155:
149:
143:
137:
127:
49:
47:
31:
28:
234:Mike Chioda
153:free images
437:WP:ILIKEIT
283:Dutyscenee
489:talk page
393:Benny Leo
366:• Gene93k
344:• Gene93k
251:Weak keep
225:attitudes
37:talk page
491:or in a
401:contribs
389:unsigned
291:contribs
279:unsigned
213:ItsZippy
120:View log
39:or in a
466:Jenks24
433:Comment
238:Carrite
159:WP refs
147:scholar
93:protect
88:history
462:WP:GNG
458:Delete
414:Delete
256:Pundit
209:Delete
131:Google
97:delete
54:Drmies
50:delete
382:Keep,
262:utter
174:JSTOR
135:books
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
470:talk
449:talk
422:talk
397:talk
370:talk
348:talk
325:talk
310:talk
287:talk
272:Keep
242:talk
221:Keep
199:talk
167:FENS
141:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
181:TWL
118:– (
472:)
451:)
439:,
424:)
403:)
399:•
372:)
362:.
350:)
340:.
327:)
312:)
293:)
289:•
244:)
201:)
161:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
468:(
447:(
420:(
395:(
368:(
346:(
323:(
308:(
285:(
259:|
240:(
197:(
185:)
177:·
171:·
163:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
133:(
125:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.