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 delete. The consensus is to delete as the case of Reynolds' notability has not been proven through the supplied sources -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RD Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

non-notable

Well, as anyone who's seen my recent edits will attest to, I am unsure of the correct way to edit this. However, this article would not seem to to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The links are either his own website, or sites closely tied to him. There was a previous discussion about this, with the result being "NO CONSENSUS" (I was no part of that). From what I can gather(and this may come across as POV), the people who voted "Delete" did so with reasons, citing other examples, whereas the people who voted "Keep" did so purely out of personal pleasure gotten from reading Mr Reynolds' works, or because "he's notable in the Internet Wrestling Community. Yet the IWC article itself was deleted for non-notability. And other prominent(I would say more so) IWC figures such as "Scott Keith" have had THEIR articles deleted for non-notability. I am unsure if I have even loaded this nomination properly, but if anyone is able to help, will alert the Project Wrestling Page, as well as regular editors of the article in question(excluding the vandals of course). Spoke shook (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge with WrestleCrap, although that in itself is very poorly sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per all the points I made in previous noms. --Endlessdan (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - relevant content to WrestleCrap. Nikki♥311 03:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - most of the reasons listed for not keeping this article are mentioned in what not to bring up as a reason for deleting something. Especially stating that someone "more notable" had an article deleted. Me stating that is probably against whatever rules there are anyway. The article itself can be expanded but multiple instances of vandalism pretty much ensured that it would never get finished anyway. DX927 (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does he meet WP:GNG? Nikki♥311 16:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • By receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DX927 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such as? Spoke shook (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of the 6 References, 1 is The WrestleCrap site, 1 a blog, 1 a dead link, 2 links to ECW Press, and 1 a link to Fighting Spirit Magazine. While a case for notability could possibly be made for the last 3, none are "independent of the subject". In fact, since most companies have websites that list people working for(/with) them, even these 3 are not exactly notable either. Your local 7-11 probably has a website stating who the Store Manager is, but does that mean he should have a Wikipedia page? Spoke shook (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You sure seem to have a vendetta against this guy. Way to have a neutral point of view. DX927 (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am actually a fan of Wrestlecrap. However, I honestly don't believe that RD is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article. I would actually like him to have his own article, but Wikipedia precedent(removing articles on Scott Keith, Vince Verhei, Internet Wrestling Community etc, as well as articles of actual active pro wrestlers) would make him less than notable. Especially since there is still a Wrestlecrap article. Is there any good reason for there to be TWO articles, one on Wrestlecrap, and one on RD? Especially since the Wrestlecrap article contains all the information about the site, radio show, gooker, and books? The mention of the references was simply to state that Wikipedia requires reliable third-party sources. This article has been here for a long time, with only self-referential links, and a link to his MySpace page! Spoke shook (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • There it is in a nutshell. An article you created was deleted so now you're "following precedent." The fact that you contacted everyone who voted to delete the article last time is dubious as well. Several people who said it should be kept weren't left messages from you, in fact it's amazing you said anything to me at all. The whole process of this particular nomination is highly suspicious. And you're STILL listing reasons that are not supposed to be talked about. The fact that x, y, z pages were deleted or don't exist is not a reason for deletion. Furthermore, for a page about someone not notable, it sure gets enough traffic from vandals and people wanting to constantly delete it and the Wrestlecrap page for "not being notable." But it's pointless, you're set in your opinion. This whole process is pointless because no one actually follows guidelines set by Wikipedia. Not only that but pretty much any reason to keep OR delete something is considered to be an "incorrect" reason. So I'm not even going to continue with this. Everyone on this site is delete happy. "I've never heard of it, so it should go." I've seen it 1000 times with articles completely unrelated to this one. Someone in here, not you, is basically using that as his reason for saying delete. I won't be responding, so don't bother saying anything. DX927 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • You are making this personal. Why? I have never created a Wikipedia article. An article that i made some edits to was deleted. But how is that relevant to this discussion? And if you were to check my edit history, you would see that I left messages on the discussion pages of everyone who voted "Keep" AND "delete from previous discussions". Your accusations are uncalled for, and totally inaccurate. And the purpose of this nomination was not because "I've never heard of it". It is RD Reynolds is an obscure IWC character, that even most viewers of RAW will never have heard of, let alone it being notable enough for a respected general encyclopedia. This, along with the RD Reynolds page not having any reliable sources or links, as well as the reasons stated by others here and elsewhere, makes nomination likely. Having read the previous discussion, I am shocked that the decision was "No Consensus", rather than delete. One would think that that nomination would have been reason for people to link to reliable third-party sources. However since no such links/sources exist, they have not. Hence the nomination. You wish to make it personal, but it is clearly not. Spoke shook (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is no reason that anyone is going to be searching wikipedia for this person. The items for him/wrestlecrap is all promotion which in itself is one thing but the promotion uses alot of talk that only wrestlecrap fans would recognize.Woods01 (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- this is obviously an attention seeking article on a non-notable guy. It's amazing it's still here at all.JJJ999 (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete RD is a really funny and cool guy, but, being honest, he's not really significant enough to warrant his own Wikipedia article. Dr Rgne (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails notability guidelines.--WillC 04:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously a notable figure. He has published books, he runs a popular website, and he meets WP:ATHLETE because he has competed at the fully professional level of his sport. I have very infrequent internet access at this point and will not be able to access Wikipedia again during this discusion, but when the article is kept, I will work on expanding it to demonstrate notability further (note that I have made good on such promises in the past, including Juggernaut (wrestler) and Sarah Stock, both of which I took from AfD to GA status). There was absolutely no need for yet another deletion discussion on this article, and the nominator's reasons are completely in opposition to the list of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In a case of meeting WP:ATHLETE vs. WP:WAX, the choice is obvious, and the "Delete" voters haven't given any concrete reasons to demonstrate otherwise. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a few minutes, so I added some sources. One is from SLAM! Wrestling and gives a good amount of information on Baer/Reynolds the wrestler/manager (thus meeting WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE), and one helps demonstrate his status as an expert on wrestling gimmicks and further establishes his notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one (which may or not be considered reliable, you'll have to ask someone else) link barely mentions him in passing, and doesn't really say much besides his being involved in Wrestlecrap. While SlamWrestling has been cited as reliable before, certain other Wikipedia articles which used SlamWrestling as their links/sources have been deleted for NOT having reliable links/sources. Yes yes yes this is getting into WP:WAX, but Wikipedia needs to have common rules, what's not good enough to save other wrestling-related articles should not be good enough to save this one just because you may be a fan of the guy. Spoke shook (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, being notable in professional wrestling(or more specifically in this case amongst a niche group of Internet Wrestling Community people) does not automatically make that person notable for Wikipedia. This is not the Pro Wrestling Wikia. Likewise, having had a book(or books plural) published does not automatically guarantee you being considered notable by Wikipedia guidelines. Spoke shook (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Having come back and re-read these "reliable sources", I can state unambiguously that there is NO mention whatsoever of RD Reynolds having"competed at the fully professional level of his sport". The only "notable" thing is that he is "one of the internet's biggest wrestling writers". If that alone is good enough to keep the article, then by all means, however, I personally feel that is in no way good enough to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The user GaryColemanFan has also resorted to attempting to keep the article by stating that he has "very infrequent internet access at this point", but "when the article is kept" he "will work on expanding it". Well, two things spring to mind...1)that this is just a stalling ploy to keep the article from deletion(as per the reasons stated throughout this page) and 2)a quick check through the article's edit history sees GaryColemanFan as the perhaps the article's most frequent editor. Likewise he has had an extensive editing history on Wikipedia in general, yet has never seen fit to "work on expanding" it. Does this article need further expansion with unreliable "verifications"(which are NOT mentioned at all in the references/links!), or no links at all? So, 2 "reliable" sources(from the same wrestling-only fansite) which state only that a) he has had two wrestling-related books published, and b)he is "one of the internet's biggest wrestling writers". I'm sorry, but I(and I'm quite sure nearly everyone else) believe that to still be non-notable. Spoke shook (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • First of all, trying to act like a bully doesn't make up for your lack of policy or guideline-based comments. The sources establish that he (1) competed as a professional wrestler and participated in many aspects of the business, which is sufficient to meet WP:ATHLETE and (2) is considered notable as a person, aside from his website, for his careers in wrestling and writing (both books and as a regular contributor to a major magazine). Your comment about a "wrestling-only fansite" is absurd, since SLAM! Wrestling is part of Canadian Online Explorer and is edited by Greg Oliver, who is a huge name in the wrestling journalism business. As for my internet access, you might want to revisit WP:AGF. My laptop battery is dead, so I have infrequent access to the internet (since you were obviously digging through my past contributions, you may have noticed that I regularly contribute to Wikipedia every day and then suddenly stopped for 5 days). I do not have the time to do major edits to the article on relatives' computers. As for my edits on this page, they have been largely fighting vandalism. Why does that matter? I have no idea. No, I haven't done a lot of work on this page. If you want to see where my time has been spent, check out my user page. Again, though, why does this matter? WP:HEY says to give the article a chance (this is also backed up by WP:NOTIMELIMIT). The article has potential, reliable sources that establish the subject's notability (independent of his website, thus making a merger of pages a bad option), and I have offered to work on it. Rather than claiming that I am using a stalling ploy, take a look at what has happened when I have made the same offer in the past: Sarah Stock, Juggernaut (wrestler), Kafu, just to name a few off the top of my head. I do not need further comments from you, so please start your own comment if you feel the need to continue your attempts at bullying. The facts remains: the article meets the notability guideline, and the closing administrator should put much more weight on that than a few "delete" votes that cite neither policy nor guidelines and your WAX arguments and attempts to mischaracterize the discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nobody is "trying to act like a bully". A lot of people have noted that this article has no reliable sources, and that the subject(RD Reynolds) is non-notable, even amongst wrestling fans. I realize this may be irrelevant to this discussion but even most wrestling "smarks" have most likely never even heard of the guy! Again, even if you check RD's own website, there is no mention of him having competed as a professional wrestler, so now you are making claims, and adding(non-reliable) links that do not state the claim that you make they do. Yes, your links note that he has written obscure wrestling-related books, but is that really notable enough for a Wikipedia article? I would think not. I can see that you have not had as much internet access as you have in the past, but you have certainly had sufficient access prior to that to "work on expanding" the article. And the article does not need to be expanded. What it does desperately need is Reliable Sources which state more than he is "one of the internet's biggest wrestling writers" an accolade that does not meet Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines. Your other claims are quite frankly ridiculous, as even RD Reynolds himself has never claimed to be an active professional wrestler. And even if he had(which he hasn't) there is a major difference between being a John Cena or Hulk Hogan (or even a Steve Doll), and working one or two indie shows twenty years ago(which he never even did!). Irrelevant to this article and discussion, but I also find your tone offensive(statements, like "done with you, do not reply to me"(because you know you argument is hollow?), "acting like a bully"). Likewise, simply making bold statements such as "obviously a notable figure", "when the article is kept" and "competed as a professional wrestler" do not make them so. There are no reliable sources, even the sources used(mainly his own site) make no mention of him having ever worked as a professional wrestler(not that that alone is notable), and the only "notable" statement is that he is "one of the internet's biggest wrestling writers"(which is also OR, did that site monitor hits on all the various wrestling-related websites?) There is no reason to believe this article will ever be improved, as its two main flaws... 1)The subject's lack of notability and 2)Lack of Reliable sources stating the subject's notability, will never be "corrected". Spoke shook (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If this is too longwinded here is a Summary:

• • I (as well as many other editors) noted the lack of reliable sources, coupled with the subject's lack of notability for this article. I then nominated it for deletion. The tag was removed by an IP vandal, who arrogantly swore at me, and was then banned, and the tag replaced. Six other editors voted for "Delete", also citing the lack of notability and/or lack of reliable sources. Another editor voted to "Merge" the relevant information(such as exists) into the Wrestlecrap article. One editor voted "Keep", citing the article's previously being vandalized as reason for the lack of reliable sources. When asked to provide sources for the article's notability, he replied that those who voted "Delete" "sure seem to have a vendetta against the guy" and then stated "I'm not even going to continue with this" and abandoned his argument. A second editor also voted "Keep" because the subject is "Obviously a notable figure". When asked how this is so, he made claims without providing sources to back up those claims. He also resorted to personal attacks (claiming that I was "Acting like a bully"), and again seems to be "done with you, do not reply to me). He did state that he may "work on expanding" the article at some indeterminate point in the future. He also provided new links(which may or may not be reliable, I'll have to leave that to someone with more authority). reading through the links one gets only two points made, which are...

1)The subject has CO-authored two (obscure) books, both of which have the word Wrestlecrap in the title(and both of which are mentioned in greater detail in the Wrestlecrap article)

2)The subject is "one of the internet's biggest wrestling writers". Is that alone notable? Can that actually be verified? And isn't that also mentioned on.....the Wrestlecrap article?

There is absolutely no reason for this article to exist. Spoke shook (talk) 09:48, 17 August 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.