Talk:Wade Keller

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why was the picture removed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism on this talk page and article 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)
thread_title:  Nominated for deletion? 

message: (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)
thread_title:  List of star ratings 

message: A link to the post can be provided, if necessary to prove its veracity. --Magmagirl (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite surprised you think it's not necessary at all. --Golbez (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  April 2009 VIP Forum post 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sexual orientation controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Only if a reliable, independent source covers it. 5.64.41.151 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Detractors section