Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Patton (referee)

:{{la|Chad Patton (referee)}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Chad Patton (referee)}})

Non-notable wrestling referee. Originally AFDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Patton. 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - The subject remains non-notable, with no reliable sources available. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia 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 attitudes 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, 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. This is more or less the consensus of the community, albeit implicit rather than explicit. Chad Patton's bio is pop-culture cruft. Much like Mike Chioda, 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 Wikipedia great. IAR Keep. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Weak keep - 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. Pundit|utter 15:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Lots of reference on 'tinternet. Clearly noteable in his field eveen if his field is pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutyscenee (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

:: 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. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

:: 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 meet the notability criteria, and should be deleted, just like the original AFD result. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, because all of the other referees have articles as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benny Leo (talk • contribs) 04:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment So far, in my sight, the Keep votes are either WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFF, 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. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. 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 WP:GNG. I agree with TexasAndroid that all the above keep votes are incredibly weak. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2011 (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.