Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Robinson (referee) (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Both users who voted keep gave good reasons, and no one besides the nominator wanted deletion. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Robinson (referee)

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

Note: This debate was mirrored from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Robinson (referee) as that was an improperly performed AfD, but it was valid. The nominator's post has been mirrored here and that page redirected here. That said, this debate should be considered the first nomination, despite the page's title which would be indicative of the contrary. -- ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (nominator). This article has been tagged for almost a year but still lacks secondary sources to establish notability. (WP:GNG or WP:BIO) The tags have been removed twice (2-Dec-2009 and 23-Nov-2010) but without additional sources added. At present, there are 12 sources given but 5 of them are from WWE, Robinson's employer and are not independent. Four sources are from SLAM but include only incidental mentions of Robinson. (One of the SLAM sources, (8) doesn't even mention him, though he is in the photo.) The remaining 3 sources are from Online World of Wrestling but one (4) is a photo only and one (6) is only an incidental mention. The only source actually about Robinson is the remaining Online World of Wrestling page (5) but even it offers only minimal "career highlights." Moreover, as a commercial fan site, the Online World of Wrestling site is less reliable and independent than it should be to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Whether or not a source is or is not commercial is not a requisite of it's validity with regard to verifiability. Though a questionable one, Online World of Wrestling does appear to be a legitimate source of valid information regarding wrestling as much as The Wrestling Observer would be. SLAM! Sports is clearly a valid source though it is not in question here. WWE.com, though not an independent source, is a legitimate source. The question is in what capacity is WWE.com providing the information? I.E., if WWE.com announced, in the future, the death of one of their present or former talent, should we shun it due to it coming from the WWE.com whether it is fact or not? A primary source can indeed be used as a proper resource granted that it is a reliable source, under the guidelines set by WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLP. Granted, WWE.com may sometimes take liberties with facts and news - as anyone familiar with the Jeff Hardy situation regarding Survivor Series (2008) is well aware of, but it was - however, the first to post on Chris Benoit. That said, it does have merit as a valid resource. Admittedly, resources of information on Charles Robinson are extremely limited, however, it is indisputable that his role in WCW, one of the two largest wrestling promotions in the world during the '90s, was pivotal. That said, on the question of whether or not the article subject is notable, the answer is yes. Proving it, on the other hand, with a significant amount of third-party resources, especially as most news outlets - even those with a focus in the professional wrestling niche - do not give much in the way of coverage of referees as they do Managers/Valets and Pro. Wrestlers themselves, is difficult at best and borderline-impossible at worst. That said, I move for a keep of the article, but a weak one. Perhaps further valid sources will become available. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 05:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Speaking as someone who has done research the old-fashioned way since about the mid-1980s, ANY page on Wikipedia whose sources are 100% web-based is suspect in my opinion. It's why the vast majority of pro wrestling pages suffer from both systemic bias and undue weight in excess. The web's approach to pro wrestling from the start has been to disregard or reinvent its history. Prior to the web, the business had never carefully documented its history to start with, nor sought to attract third parties who could or would. Before I start ranting here, let's just say it makes for a mess. Far too much weight is given to present-day attitudes and perspectives. Which finally brings me around to my point. I haven't watched a whole lot of pro wrestling since Robinson has been in the business, but I can state that he is far more notable than probably 100+ current indy wrestlers who do have pages. Those pages probably contain the same sources or chain of information as this one, and are probably not being considered for deletion by anyone. Go read To Be the Man and I'll bet you $2.98 that you'll find something useful to this page. My copy is in storage, or I would help you. Finally, at some point this year, the page "Dick Worley" was deleted. That was probably a good thing, because his last name is actually spelled WOERHLE. The article was 98% devoid of useful content, but he certainly is in the same boat as Robinson (many years as a referee, worked at both WWF and WCW, frequently identified on-air by name). But that just further confirms my belief that how many years one is removed from the business in somehow a factor in forming these pages, and that's perhaps a separate issue.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:42, 4 December 2010 (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.