Talk:Wade Keller

Discussion

Turns out there is a Bryan Alvarez page now.

Who is this Keller34 jerk who keeps spamming the article?

Why is the Nora Greenwald romance joke/rumor considered "irrelevant"? Irrelevant to what?

It doesn't seem to me that it would seem deemable to appear in a encyclopedia article. The article is about Keller as a journalist... not about his personal life.

I didn't realize it was only about Wade Keller the Journalist. There is simply little-to-no information about his personal life.

I could see that for more famous celebrities & stuff... maybe someone else can chime in on whether or not to include it... (same person as 2 posts above)

But wouldn't famous celebrities have more than enough information about themselves? I'll leave off the Greenwald romance joke/rumor (it's openly acknowledged on the Torch website as a joke, but everyone discusses it as if it's serious gossip), but I think any biographical pages should have a happy balance of personal AND professional. By the way, Wade has a cat. We don't know her name.

This is to youse guys who keep vandializing this page...PLEASE STOP, or at least come up with some new material!!!!

--I agree. Do you really not have anything better to do than to vandalize an article? Maybe you could try poking some Jello with a stick or something.

But surely Keller's smartass whiny dirt sheet, and the baseless accusations aginst any wrestlers or bookers he has a personal grudge against deserve a response in kind. Only when the observer stops the mudslinging and clear personal bias should the "vandialising" come to a halt.

--And how exactly is constant meaningless vandalism "a response in kind"? It's stupid and pathetic. If someone has that much time to keep vandalizing a Wikipedia article, why don't they channel that energy into writing some constructive criticism?

(P.S.) Whatever mudslinging the Observer is doing has nothing to do with Keller or the Torch.

Pretty sure it's not true that "The MMA Torch website has been around since 1993" Hack-Man (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

I don't see how confusing names in one issue of the Torch is merit of a write-up... but to each his own I guess. I would think questioning his credibility would cite such sources as when he was sure Hogan was coming back and did not and other such instances. I don't think we need to word-for-word those paragraphs you cited, so I paraphrased them. 12.34.246.36 18:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was the picture removed?

The source of the picture was given when it was first uploaded. It was hosted at www.gumgod.com, and voluntarily provided by the webmaster.--204.246.229.147 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably because it's not a real picture of Wade Keller. Mr Keller in fact weighs 457 pounds, and has very oily skin. 20 August 2006

• Don't act like a moron.

Isn't the picture public domain?

No, it's not, it's owned by "Honcho" magazine.

It was a screenshot hosted at gumgod.com. Personally, I don't see why this page is vandalized so often. --Amberjet11 17:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cause he doesn't know how to rate matches and has a very crappy newsletter compared to the Wrestling Observer and Figure Four Weekly.

Or it could be that the morons who read Figure 4 and The Observer realise that Keller is a far superior wrestling journalist, and so have to stoop to vandalising his wikipedia entry in the pathetic hopes of making themselves feel better about their crappy dirtsheets, and their lack of social lives.

• FUCK OFF

Is your "FUCK OFF" comment directed at the person who declared Observer/Figure 4 readers as morons and devoid of a social life, or at the people who claimed Keller was an oily homosexual who runs a crappy newsletter?

• The first option.

• Certainly if you wish to express negative opinions regarding Mr Keller or The Torch you would phrase it in a such a way that you didn't look like a complete douchebag?

• Also, I agree with what the guy above said. If you're gonna vandalise this page, at least come up with jokes that aren't 300 years old.

• Hey Wade fans! :-)

Criticism -- keep it honest and objective.

I have removed blatant lies from the Criticism section...such as the Keller's Take in which he allegedly claims he will start a petition, and that McMahon is a piece of waste, or somesuch nonsense. I am not telling people they don't have the right to criticize someone, but if you're going to do so, at least use facts! Don't make up something that wasn't even written, and then use that as your fuel for criticism. Here is a link to the real Keller's Take dated July 2, 2007: http://www.pwtorch.com/artman/publish/article_20769.shtml --Magmagirl 16:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted at least two edits in the last few days on this page. While I appreciate that there is criticism about the article's subject, it must maintain compliance with WP:NPOV. Trusilver 03:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing even the least bit encyclopedic about the Criticism section. As such, it has been removed and the article has instantly been improved.Jmapper 03:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

JMapper has violated my freedom of speech. Wade Keller is a public figure who in MANY Torch Newsletters wrote the information I added. The man is subject to criticism. The Dane Cook article contains many even if Jmapper NEVER cited sources for them. Yeah, that's what we call a hypocrite. The page is semi-protected which means the truth can't be printed.

I see you used your "Freedom of speech" to replace Bryan Alvarez's entire page with "Why does it hurt when I pee?" Yeah, any public figure is open to criticism but you need sources to back up what you're saying. There was not a single link to an actual article used in conjunction with the criticism against Wade Keller. In fact, there was a fabricated quote used as "evidence." Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can lie and/or act like an idiot and expect it to be acceptable in an encyclopedia. Also, if you're going to whine about your freedoms being violated, at least sign your name. --Magmagirl

Vandalism on this talk page and article

I am currently watching this talk page now after hearing a complaint about vandalism. First, I am going to point out that Wikipedia discussion pages are not forums. This is not the place to discuss what you do or don't like about the subject, it's about discussing how to improve the article.

Second, I have seen a remarkable number of WP:CIVIL violations here.

Bottom line: Play nice, play by the rules and stop vandalizing pages or you are going to be blocked from editing. Trusilver 17:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion?

I daresay it would be virtually impossible to find objective, third-party sources and references that cover, not the pro-wrestling industry as a whole, but specifically the industry of newsletters that cover the pro-wrestling industry. To say "third party" means one would have to find references to the Torch, Observer, Figure Four Weekly, etc. outside of the pro-wrestling industry, and short of a guest on (for example) Larry King Live saying he read something about Chris Benoit in a newsletter, there is really nothing to go on. I say the nomination for deletion is unfair in this respect, and the article should be allowed to continue its existence. --Magmagirl 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"I daresay it would be virtually impossible to find objective, third-party sources and references?" Have you not seen the references on Dave Meltzer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.246.4 (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked the Dave Meltzer references and notes. Five out of eight of those notes and references are within the pro-wrestling industry, and the first on the list cites Meltzer himself. I don't think being cited in one's own Wiki entry counts as an objective third-party source, do you? Another reference is from Sports Illustrated, and the other two I'm not familiar with to know whether they are pro-wrestling writers or not. So to reiterate my original comment, it is virtually impossible to find objective third-party sources outside of the pro-wrestling industry. --Magmagirl (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever said it had to be outside of the industry? If you can find a published work or book such as the ones for Meltzer then that can work. The citation that cites his own book is from a forward or bio within the description in the book. I can't remember which. But it is not Meltzer himself. Try a google book search like this one [1]. I'm too lazy to look through those but I see his name has popped up in the search. 12.34.246.37 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

List of star ratings

(I have blanked this section as it consisted entirely of incoherent diatribes, blatant vandalism and personal attacks. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia's Talk pages, please remember to keep your comments civil. Thank you.) Terraxos (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find kellers star ratings 142.162.207.62 (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Every God match is auto. ***** imo Sockerknopper (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)|FUNK

Links to all star ratings lists, plz.

Has this been nominated as a shit article yet?

142.162.198.206 (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No it hasn't as there's no such category on wikipedia. Dr Rgne (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

well there should be

April 2009 VIP Forum post

A link to the post can be provided, if necessary to prove its veracity. --Magmagirl (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised you think it's not necessary at all. --Golbez (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, an extremely controversial and libelous claim like accusing someone of being gay has to be from a reliable source. TJ Spyke 22:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that the relevant link was removed, because it comes from a subscriber-only site. Keller made the statement *only* on this forum. I guess it will have to remain off the article until a similar post makes its way to the free area of the Torch website. --204.246.229.243 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are right. Wikipedia guideline say to avoid using sources that require a subscription or membership to view. Considering this is a very controversial claim to make about someone, i'm sure an admin would agree here. TJ Spyke 15:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture

What did happened to the picture of Wade Keller? Was thinkinh that it was fair use to use it, but now it be gone from article said?

Sexual orientation controversy

There seems to be some sort of controversy about Mr Keller's sexual orientation. Is he heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual? Someone keeps adding information that he is homosexual, but has yet to give a relevant link/source. Does anyone have anything further, WITH a source? Any thoughts? Routeempty (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just childish vandalism. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

its actually not "childish vadalism". he made the announcement on his pay site during the summmer, with pictures of his adopted son and "boyfriend". if someone hasnt provided a link, its because its MEMBERS ONLY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.131.138 (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to make the edit several months ago, with Keller's approval via email, only to be told I was vandalizing the page -- which, coincidentally, I created several years earlier. I noted at the time that the only way this would be considered official in Wiki minds would be if Keller made the edit himself. You can, however, see pictures of him, his boyfriend and son (not adopted -- biological as explained on the members only site) on Facebook, or on the aforementioned members only site. --Magmagirl (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If he approves it being mentioned here, why don't you ask him to publish it in the public section of his website? Then it would be useable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

But why would he only come out on the MEMBERS ONLY pay site? Also why did you write boyfriend as "boyfriend"? AS far as wikipedia is concerned, there is no evidence whatsoever that he is gay. Of course, if you, or anyone else, could provide a reliable source, then that would change, but as for now, those edits do look rather like vandalism boyo.

Me again. I see you also edited Bryan Alvarez's page to say "Dave Meltzer's stooge" over and over again. Was that also stated on a MEMBERS ONLY pay site?

Detractors section

This section has been edit warred over some times. There seem to be some third party sources that covers the subject like this. But I'm not sure it's fit for a BLP.★Trekker (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Petty squabbles aren't inherently notable. Especially when there's no "praise" section for WP:BALANCE. 5.64.41.151 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but the alleged death threats from Cornette would seem like something that is notable.★Trekker (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Only if a reliable, independent source covers it. 5.64.41.151 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I said "would seem", but I don't seem to find anything right now. Maybe since Corny has done it so many times it doens't make the news.★Trekker (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)