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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

nn wrestling personality, had brief wrestling managing career, wrote 2 modestly selling (among wrestling fans, not mainstream) books, and has website WrestleCrap with current alexa of 142,115. The only independent review I can find outside of wrestling websites is from an NYC tabloid. See afd for Scott Keith for precedent, he is more published than RD. Booshakla 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The guy is entertaining, but not notable. Manager Of Champions 01:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The death of WCW is a significant and well known piece of work in the wrestling community. As one of the two authors, he is notable. WrestleCrap is also not an insignificant website. Both together equal an individual who is barely notable by Wikipedia standards, but still notable enough for inclusion. Stephen Day 03:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Things that are notable within the "wrestling community" are not always notable for an encyclopedia. And I didn't say that the website wasn't notable (although it barely is), it's just that owning or being a webmaster of a site does not always promise notability. I find your comment to be lacking and we need to get the wrestlecruft out of here. He's just a nn indy manager who wrote a few low-selling books (in terms of book selling in general, not a few hundred wrestling fans) and has a barely notable website. Booshakla 03:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The I guess I should really make myself clear. I threw the website in as a bonus to emphasize that he is notable, but the book alone, in my opinion, makes him notable. The Death of WCW is brought up on numerous shows and publications that discuss pro wrestling as an example of how not to run a wrestling company. That fact makes it much more notable than anything Scott Keith has written, none of which have the same standing amongst those reporting on the workings of pro wrestling. Dave Meltzer is the most noteworthy of those who use it as an example. It is a significant enough piece of work, that it is VERY notable and as such the author is notable as well. I never said that he was very, or extremely notable, in fact I stated that he is barely notable under Wikipedia standards. However, someone who is barely notable is still notable. Stephen Day 04:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge It is not enough for its own article, I would merge it with Wrestlecrap. Kris Classic 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Stephen Day. Managed to get decent Google hits too. Suriel1981 11:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Booshakla, you state at the top that Reynolds' books are "modest selling" and in your comment above you state that they're "low-selling". Is there a factual basis for this? Suriel1981
• Keep Author a book that is well recieved and sold pretty well, and founder/operator of one of the more well known wrestling sites. TJ Spyke 10:14, 6 March 2007 (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.