Talk:Adam Brooks (wrestler)

Notability
Coverage of the subject includes Fox Sports, The Australian, Vice, Executive Style, PWI, and Fightful. Removing notability tag as it is not accurate. If the user wishes they can start a WP:AfD and I will comment this same thing there. StaticVapor message me!   20:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop being a bully. 2001:8003:594A:6800:CE8:E8F7:D766:92D4 (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And stop removing the tag until it's sorted. Don't assume what you put there is enough. Consensus rules, right? 2001:8003:594A:6800:15B8:A4DA:2C07:418E (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is what WP:AFD is for. Edit waring over a notability tag makes no sense. I wonder why your "first edit" was to edit war over this... StaticVapor message me!   08:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No it's not. The notability tag is the step before an AfD and should remain until notability has been established. You should not remove it until we have a consensus. This isn't my first edit. My IP changes constantly. I can't help that. Wait for Addicted to respond. 2001:8003:594A:6800:15B8:A4DA:2C07:418E (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes and it was challenged and I provided multiple reliable sources that indicate he is notable. This is what the template suggests to do before removing it. Clearly he is notable so that tag is inaccurate. I do not have to wait for your friend Addicted to respond. This needs to go to AfD. If you think the subject is not notable, the article needs to be deleted. Once the AfD is closed as keep we can move on from this. StaticVapor message me!   09:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your opinion alone isn't enough. You are one person. One person does not equal a consensus. For the record, and I said this in the edit summary, Addicted had a good point about the Australian link. That's that link eliminated from the equation. Get a consensus from others that you have proven notability, and until then the tag needs to stay. Provoking deletionism to make a point is not encyclopedic. 2001:8003:594A:6800:C002:7EF6:8BB5:347C (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That is really not how notability works though. It is determined by the guidelines, not opinions. It is determined by "significant coverage in reliable secondary independent sources", you know - the kind pointed out aboge starting with Fox Sports. So you are the one that is wrong, editwarring over a tag you "feel" like it should be there in spite of the guidelines and you are the one being disruptive here. No tag needed, there is your unnecessary consensus. Now stop being tag silly and contribute positively instead. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to, when you show how these links follow the guidelines, when Addicted said the Australian didn't in his edit summary on the article as an example. Significant coverage fails when self pub and inherit are involved, right? I said that was a good point within the guidelines. Hey, we need you here! 2001:8003:594A:6800:C002:7EF6:8BB5:347C (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fox Sports - independent, reliable, 3rd party. And it is a whole article about him which qualifies as "significant", that source by itself meets the criteria. Don't actually need to go further. Is Fox News "self pub"? Is the piece not about Adam Brooks specifically? So neither argument is valid for that source. As stated above, if you question the notability take it to AFD and we will see I guess. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One source. Big deal. And it's not just about Adam Brooks. It's just as much about Buddy Murphy. WP:INHERIT much? You do need to go further I think. 2001:8003:594A:6800:C002:7EF6:8BB5:347C (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One source is really all it needs to really establish notability. And if we say it's 50% Brooks that is still "significant" and no need to "inherit" anything. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is it that every time I take a short break from editing all heck breaks loose?

Firstly, I will review each of the sources provided;
 * Fox Sports - This does not establish notability as the IP is correct. It inherits notability from Buddy Murphy and in a very obvious way, as well as in the opening spiel doing it again with Super Show-down. It is a WWE article judging by the URL which is a further giveaway. It does not make Brooks notable to just say he wants to be in WWE like his best mate Murphy. Equally - most unlike Fox Sports - this is a promotion piece. Super Show-down and the mention of the Melbourne City Wrestling show is promotion at it's finest, which is a cross against the promotional rules of self publication. Those two rules ("guidelines" if you like) push this away from not just the notability argument but also validity under the rules of WP:BLP.
 * The Australian - As the IP noted I already addressed this in an edit summary on the main article when I added the notability tag. The article remains paywalled, but the title suggest the same issue with both WP:SELFPUB and WP:INHERIT with Murphy. Using magazines (which the URL suggests this is) from Australian newspapers is an inherent issue with promotional articles which for BLP's in particular need to be avoided.
 * Vice - I thought I'd seen this one before and I was right. This is the exact same article that Static Vapor tried to use to claim notability for Melbourne City Wrestling. It is a promotional piece for them and not Brooks which is even worse that it's original intended use.
 * Executive Style - Only a picture of Brooks and no mention of him in the article itself renders this source totally useless.
 * PWI - Blatantly promotional about Major League Wrestling and if anything this inherits notability from said promotion.
 * Fightful - This uses the exact same promotional blurb as the PWI link and has the same issue.

So in the wash up none of these sources are suitable to prove notability as they breach too many other rules/"guidelines".

Secondly, the IP makes a very good case for enforcing the AfD process simply to make a point. I for one am certainly not a "deletionist". It is why the notability tag is not an excuse for it. Said tag is simply a note that the article needs more sources to prove notability. I am not the sort of person to go off half cocked over it. That's not the way to go. The way to go is to provide maximum chance for other editors to provide sources that fulfill the rules re in this case notability. I want to see those sources. That is good WP editing in my view. Going straight to AfD in this instance is inappropriate, arbitrary and overly assertive. I don't agree with the IP about bullying but I can see why he would think that.

The notability tag should stay until other sources are found. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh wow! That was a burial that was even better than I thought it would be! Thanks, Addicted! 2001:8003:594A:6800:2C04:BA78:B9CB:F73B (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the grossest misrepresentation of the Fox source I have ever seen, a truely bizarro world take. It is NOT about SuperShowdown, it mentions it, it mentions Murphy as well but it is about Brooks and yes sure it has WWE and Murphy for context but it's about Brooks, to deny that means you have not actually read it. And "Self Publish"? Do you actually know what that means? because it looks like you don't. Can you quote what part of the guideline the story from a sports website on Adam Brooks makes it "Self Publish" please. That story is not actually about WWE (despite your snap judgement of the URL). There are no indicators that this is anything but a piece on Adam Brooks, his career, hopes, ambitions etc. hitting all the marks under the GNG. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As for the IP, it really doesn't make you look bullied when you do your best "Ha, Ha you just got owned" schoolyard bit. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, laughing at a bully (not you by the way - the other guy) is the perfect comeback/protection. Oh and hey, if Brooks wasn't a buddy of Murphy's do you think he would have got print? Huh? You accuse Addicted of not knowing what self pub is. You need a refresher on inherit! 2001:8003:594A:6800:2C04:BA78:B9CB:F73B (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do know what "Self Pub" is, but I do not see how it actually applies to the Fox source. And saying "Well would he have gotten coverage if he did not know Murphy?" is you just making stuff up to fit your false narrative. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So instead of just going "it' self pup" please explain how the Fox article is in any way Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, or user-generated sources, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. cause I don' see it. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you go to the link to self publication that I already linked above and have done so again here. It goes to an entirely different guideline. And I shall demonstrate how Fox Sports and Vice (I can not comment on the Australian as it is paywalled) fail this guideline.
 * Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
 * 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
 * 2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
 * 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook.
 * Fox Sports and Vice violate points 1, 2 and 5. They are both unduly self serving, especially Vice, there are claims about third parties, Buddy Murphy in the case of Fox Sports and MCW in the case of Vice, and the article about Brooks relies heavily on both sources - especially Fox Sports. Fox Sports also violates point 3 with the mention of Super Show-down and it's misleading category of WWE when Brooks has no association with it, except via Murphy which is where inherited notability becomes an issue. Based on the link URL the same issue exists with the Australian. I would need to see it to make a proper judgment, but paywalled sources are generally frowned upon for different reasons anyway. I hope that explains the issue satisfactorily and why the notability tag should stay to allow for more sources to be found. I'm sure we can agree at least that the article is in bad need of an update as well, and this is where perhaps reliable sources to properly establish notability can be found. This is why going to AfD would be entirely inappropriate. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that would totally be the case if 1) It was a press release (or the like) or 2) published by Brooks or a promotion he worked for. This is published by Fox, where is the "self" part? The guidelines you cite are for sources by the subject, so his Twitter, his website etc. it does not refer to an article about him published by a third party (which has editors and a fact-checking process). Explain the Self part, because that is where your argument falls apart.MPJ-DK (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a press release. I am in no doubt about this due to the way it was written, therefore the presence of any fact checking is in fact irrelevant. The guideline I quoted goes wider than what you claim. The reality about Australian wrestling is that promotions and individuals do whatever they can to try and push their product purely because of the success of the likes of Murphy and the IIconics. I can see this and it would be better for this process of consensus if you were to look at this from the point of view of the glass being half empty rather than half full. If you don't understand where I'm coming from here we'll never find common ground. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Anything to actually prove that this is a press release? And if so, by who?MPJ-DK (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is promotional in tone. That goes directly to the definition of a press release. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So you think it is a press release, but no proof. The very definition of WP:OR, thank you for admitting that. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As for your claims that it is filed under WWE, it is just their categorization. Rather then have a "wrestling" tab, their wrestling tab says "WWE", since WWE is far and beyond what wrestling is to casuals. You will see this often in more mainstream publications. Sports Illustrated did this until just recently. Can you also point where paywalled sources are generally frowned upon? Also where it says that they do not establish notability? Sure looks like a reliable source to me and the article is about him. StaticVapor message me!   16:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If one can not see the source, how could it be used as a source? It's that simple. Sources should be easily accessed. If you have paid to get through the paywall (as it appears you have) then you have an unfair advantage to the point that it appears to be original research when in reality it's not. It's a grey area - and grey areas in general require more back up. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is the case why are print only sources allowed? The guidelines do not discriminate against something behind a paywall or not on the internet. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologise. I should have said online source. Nevertheless the ease of access is a factor. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Still not true just because you said so. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Fox Sports, Vice, and The Australian sources are significant independent coverage in reliable sources. That alone is enough to meet WP:GNG. Falsely claiming they are promotional or anything like that is purely disruptive. StaticVapor message me!   14:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two guidelines that you need to be aware of in this conversation. Assuming good faith and civility. Consensus will not be achieved if you make accusations of other users that are entirely divisive and inappropriate. I address the present issue above with MPJ-DK. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is WP:SELFPUB and WP:INHERIT do not at all apply here, you just are grasping at straws trying to make it fit your narrative. StaticVapor message me!   15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet again you are not assuming good faith. You are not assisting in this matter. I ask that you address the content instead of me. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stating that you are not actually able to apply SELFPUP and INHERIT is all about the discussion and not you personally. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the "clutching at straws" remark. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well what would you call it? first you cite "SelfPub" but you cannot explain why, then you cite "Inherit" but again is not able to actually explain how. Then you call one source "a press release" without actual evidence and finally you try to get a source disqualified because it is behind a paywall despite that not actually being the case. So "Straws", "Not understanding the guidelines", WP:CIR or a bunch of others - take your pick. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear from this and the removal of the notability tag that neither of you are interested in obtaining a consensus, and you rely on personal attacks and assuming bad faith to win the argument. You have left me with little choice but to do what I am about to do. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please detail the personal attacks. There sure appears to be consensus to me. StaticVapor message me!   07:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Falsely claiming they are promotional" - "purely disruptive" - "clutching at straws" - "WP:CIR" - all personal attacks. Consensus is when everyone agrees. I do not agree and I want to discuss in a civil manner. You do not. Hence my introduction of the RfC. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering that you claim it's promotional because of "its tone" and offer no actual proof is fasely claiming something. The fact that you put up 4 totally invalid arguments and then refuse to actually pay attention when it's explained to you could lead to the CIR conclusion. Also consensus is not the same as a "everyone agrees", so a fifth wrong. You do not seem to actually discuss anything at all, just restating your claims over and over again even when it is explained that you are misinterpreting SelfPub etc. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am misinterpreting nothing. It is now up to other editors to establish a consensus seeing you have clearly indicated that you are not interested in my faithful and truthful comments. I have given proof and you have chosen to ignore it. Please do not speak to me again. This is getting neither of us anywhere. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment: Notability and related guidelines
The disputation concerns biographical notability of the subject in sport, and policies and guidelines of self publication, promotion and inherited notability. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The talk page of an article is not the place to request a change to established policy, so I have removed policy. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I re-added it because part of the dispute is over policy. It is not an attempt to change it. It is about how it is being applied. It's part of the issue at hand. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You never explained how "self publication" and "inherited" actually applies here - it's not published by anyone associated with Brooks, but by Fox. What is he supposed to "inherit" from Murphy? MPJ-DK (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I explained the first part already and it's Murphy's notability as a current WWE wrestler with two championships to his name that is being inherited. That is all I will say to you here. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * My point on this 1) can't apply selfpub to Fox news story that is not a press release or reader submitted. 2) No one has claimed ANY related to someone else made him notable, only significant coverage by 3rd party reliable sources. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You apply "SelfPub" rules to a source that does not qualify, that's like enforcing motorcycle traffic rules to a car driver. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

For those who don't scroll up to the previous note I will re-produce it here; ''This does not establish notability as the IP is correct. It inherits notability from Buddy Murphy and in a very obvious way, as well as in the opening spiel doing it again with Super Show-down. It is a WWE article judging by the URL which is a further giveaway. It does not make Brooks notable to just say he wants to be in WWE like his best mate Murphy. Equally - most unlike Fox Sports - this is a promotion piece. Super Show-down and the mention of the Melbourne City Wrestling show is promotion at it's finest, which is a cross against the promotional rules of self publication. Those two rules ("guidelines" if you like) push this away from not just the notability argument but also validity under the rules of WP:BLP.'' A key that I will add here is that there is one key question that remains unanswered. What has Brooks actually done that makes him notable? All the Fox Sports article talks about is his dreams to wrestle for WWE. It is a very poor day for an encyclopedia to allow a dreamer to obtain notability simply because he got an article on a mainstream website. I'm sure there are many similar stories in the likes of The Age, The Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph and other major Australian publications that put over one person, and not one of them is notable. I mentioned above how the article is out of date. Updating it from reliable sources would resolve this issue and as yet no one has done this. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Subject meets WP:GNG. Three users have indicated the subject is notable and the tag should be removed. However, Addicted continues to add it back. Fox Sports and The Australian indicate significant coverage in reliable sources. There is also additional coverage from other reliable sources including Vice News, Fightful.com, and Pro Wrestling Insider as linked above. StaticVapor message me!   16:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Number of editors agreeing with you is not proof. I have alrteady addressed why those are either not enough or unacceptable and you are yet to demonstrate clearly otherwise. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove as there is significant coverage in reliable sources so the tag is invalid, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Coverage of a dreamer. Kindly prove what he has actually done as the source you are talking about does not demonstrate this. There is a difference between what he wants to do and what he has done. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please stop badgering everyone that disagrees with you (which so far is everyone else) and let them say their piece. As for "has actually done" is to get "significant coverage in an independent reliable 3rd party source.", the disussion shouldn't have to go further than that. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am leting them say their piece and I am discussing the matter by bringing forward the objections and issues. One source does not equal significant, especially when there are questions over it's allowability as already mentioned. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No you keep adding to it, now it's "Well what has he done?", that is not part of the WP:GNG and just you trying to move to something else when your arguments are proven to be invalid. as for "significant" here is the definition from GNG Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. It does not state multiple sources, "Source Material" is not plural. Considering everyone else disagrees with you perhaps it is time for you to step away from this conversation? MPJ-DK (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's time you stepped away I think as you keep regurgitating the same rhetoric and add nothing to this RfC. I am yet to see anyone else actually address the issues at hand per this RfC so no, not everyone else disagrees with me on it. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Change of tune again huh? Okay then tell me who has agreed with you in this RFC? Names please. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please leave this conversation, thank you, if you are unwilling to participate in a proper manner. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "proper manner" - you mean like asking you to back up your position with actual applicable guidelines? Or in this case prove that someone else agrees with you? Yeah sorry I am so taxing on you. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 *  Remove tag Wrong venue. Notability of individual subjects is settled at AFD, not RFC. If someone thinks the subject is not notable, WP:AFD is that way. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC) ( modified – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC) )
 * Discussion of issues of what is stated at the beginning is exactly what an RfC is about. It is not about the tag. It is about the reason for the tag and the details therein. If anything your comment is off topic here. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've amended my comment. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I suggest to re-read my opening detailed remarks again. Please address the actual issues over policy/guidelines within biographies and sports. Notability is not the subject of this discussion but rather a symptom only. Your comment remains off topic. Please address the application of the policy/guidelines within the subjects mentioned and specifically the applications. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have now closed the RfC and collapsed the section where drama ensued in order to stop it. I have now replaced the tag on the main page to something more appropriate to the issue (I missed this one previously) so that more sources can be found and that it should be updated. I am now washing my hands of this particular article. It's now up to the rest of you. I am removing this page from my watch list. Thank you. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring
The last 13 edits to this article have been edit warring over the notability tag. That's nearly two thirds of the 20 lifetime edits to this article. I can't be the only one who thinks that's a bit mad. If you really think he's notable, find more secondary sources and prove that the notability tag isn't justified. If you really think he isn't, then bring it to AfD. If this keeps up, the article will be full protected. ST47 (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An AfD is presently not needed. My position has always been that notability is questionable, not absent. This is however enough to require the tag to stay. I agree with the first part, which was always my intention to encourage to begin with when I first added the tag. I am merely maintaining my concerns which have not been taken seriously thus far and have been largely attacked. It is not the way to achieve a consensus result. I have legitimate concerns which I have canvassed and need to be discussed. Of course, more reliable independent sourcing to affirm notability beyond reasonable doubt would render that discussion moot. I only ask that the current version on the main page with the tag be maintained should protection be needed until the matter is resolved on this talk page in the RfC above. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If you don't think it qualifies for AFD the notability tag should be removed now as that is the whole point of the tag to warn that it might qualify for AFD, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The procedure to warn about an AfD is to prod, not tag. I have no intention of prodding it (as I have done to another article which is close to the seven days although I haven't checked in the last 12 hours). I want more sources as the present ones are insufficient as explained above. They need back up. The tag says "may not meet", not "does not meet". There is a difference. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Jesh, you guys stop with the damn revert war on the main article!! ya'll are ALL edit warring and telling the other to stop - it's a two way street and none of you can let go of it. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)