Talk:Roddy Piper/Archives/2015

Youngest Wrestler In History

There is a challenge to wether Piper was the youngest wrestler ever. Rey Mysterio started in wrestling when he was 15. If you look at Mysterio's birthdate and when he joined, you will see he join when he was 15. So that part about Piper being the youngest needs to be changed. Mr. C.C. (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For a time Piper's gimmick was that he was the "World's Youngest Millionaire Wrestler" MisterJayEm (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Piper did not start at 15. He was 19 and his first match was against Tony Condello. He has been lying about this for years. I invite anyone to look this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.146.116 (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2015

Under the section about his death, it states Dusty Rhodes died 3 weeks earlier. It was closer to 7 weeks.

2604:6000:A8C2:AD00:349C:1C6A:62C6:37D3 (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed Dusty Rhodes's death to June 2015. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2015

Under the section about his TNA run, it states he debuted in 2013, this should be ammended to 2003, which is the correct year as stated in the sub-heading. Thank you.

Piper "was named as the top villain in wrestling history by WWE"?

I'm here to challenge the inclusion of this. WWE is not an independent source, and I feel their opinion on what Piper did has little value. If Slam Sports says he's the best villain ever, that's fine, but WWE hyping one of their employees is different. DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The two sources that I added are independent sources, but you deleted them both. This establishes notability for the claim. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

They're not independent opinions, though. DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. The fact that multiple independent reliable sources give the same information demonstrates that the information is notable. I get that you don't like WWE's opinions or think that they should be taken as fact; Wikipedia is a place where statements that are verifiable in independent reliable sources are believed to be sufficiently notable for inclusion, however. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

So if a record label says "the new album by our contracted artist, x, is the best ever recorded!" and the statement is published by Rolling Stone, that makes the non-independent label hyperbole notable for the artist's lede? I think not. DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think such a quote needs secondary sourcing for inclusion, though we need to make sure we're noting the source, which we do. Being the best ever is a big deal. If it's repeated by secondary sources then that should be indisputable. This is a notable opinion which has received sufficient coverage and it belongs in the lede.LM2000 (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the secondary sourced that DYSDY deleted are [1] and [2], but the claim is also reported in several other reliable sources, including this Entertainment Weekly article: [3]. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Legends contract lost or not?

I'm not sure that he actually lost his legends contact. Is the source really reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by *Treker (talk • contribs) 03:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)