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. If non-trivial published sources can be shown to exist, or if someone can verify the book by Floyd actually has non-trivial info on this guy, I will reconsider. W.marsh 20:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless Youth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable worker, having not done much else besides working a lot of small indy promotions. Not notable enough for a general encycolpedia. Kris 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He (along with Christopher Daniels) was the most notable indy worker before the indy boom began in 2001 or so, which makes him notable. ↪Lakes (Talk) 06:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any proof of said notability? Being slightly popular in a few small promotions during a time of low popularity in indy wrestling is like saying a person was known for being a good video gamer in the 60s'. Remember, he may be notable to wrestling fans, but this is a general encyclopedia. Kris 06:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparison is not valid. It would be more accurate if you had compared him to the most popular underground video game programmer/creator in the 60s, who would be notable. ↪Lakes (Talk) 06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, any proof he was "the most popular"? That is an opinion, not a fact. Kris 07:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The same rational could be applied to your own article Johnny Kashmere. Aside from a link to ObsessedWithWrestling.com, itself regarded as an unreliable source, Kashmere has appeared in the same promotions as Reckless Youth, however, by comparison Reckless Youth has won more titles in these same promotions (and is, in fact, an inductee of the ECWA Hall of Fame unlike Kashmere) and has competed in more notable events such as the ECWA Super 8 Tournament and the Brian Pillman Memorial Show. I'm not sure I understand why you believe he is any more notable then Reckless Youth, given your arguments for deletion. MadMax 09:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought ObsessedWithWrestling.com had been removed from the black list...so why would it still be regarded unreliable?Theophilus75 06:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN indy wrestler, there isn't spots for just any wrestler who buys a title and wrestles in front of 50 people. Saying you're the best indy wrestler is like saying you're the best whopper maker at a burger king. Biggspowd 06:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he was the best, I said he was the most popular. Now the article is definitely a stub, and needs to be expanded. ↪Lakes (Talk) 06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure title reigns are determined by wrestlers themselves personally buying championship titles. Your reasoning could arguably apply to any professional wrestler who has ever held a title in any promotion. Indeed it implies as if any wrestler could gain a championship title. MadMax 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Besides being the founder of a notable wrestling promotion, he received extensive press from Pro Wrestling Illustrated and similar magazines throughout the 1990s. It certainly wouldn't be innacurate to he was one of the most popular wrestlers in North American independents and I would say, given the state of his nearly 10-year career, he's been more then slightly successful. I do find it unfortunate that this article was nominated as a result of listing as as a candidate for WikiProject Professional wrestling's collaberation of the week, especially as its nomination was to address the issues with the article. MadMax 07:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Out of all the guys who've worked in the indies in the 90s and not picked up by any of the "big companies" (WWE, WCW, TNA) he's one of the most known, covered in various wrestling media again and again MPJ-DK 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Had a WWF developmental deal, too... --David Bixenspan 22:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That doesn't mean notability. Not all workers under current WWE Developmental contract have articles. Kris 23:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Doesn't detract either, a developmental contract on it's own is not enough to make someone notable - Reckless Youth has clearly gone beyond that including founding Chikara etc. MPJ-DK 10:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well-travelled, decorated wrestler. A cut above the average indie worker. I think somebody made a point above that he isn't going to be known to non-wrestling fans. That should never be grounds for deletion. If we deleted every single article that was about a subject not known to every single Wikipedia visitor then what would we be left with...?? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's a well decorated wrestler, and his info adds to the professional wrestling content on Wikipedia. Theophilus75 06:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a 6 page list of statistics, not an encyclopedia article. RFerreira 08:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is how a lot of pages start, as stubs like this one. If all stubs were gone so would half of the info on wikipedia.Theophilus75 14:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per RFerreira, no non-trivial sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO as no non-trivial sources exist for this individual. If this person was truly covered in "various wrestling media again and again" as MPJ states, why is this article two sentences long? Burntsauce 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Absolutely, if the sources do exist, the article can be recreated from them and taken to deletion review. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not al references are necessarily on the internet, especially as the individualsprime of popularity was the nineties. The sources for this individual are the physical copies of PWI and WON. –– Lid^(Talk) 19:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article fails to establish notability. The points raised about why the article subject is notable raised above should have been made in the article itself to preclude this nomination. McPhail 14:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment so now the vote isn't "is the subject notable" but the state of the article?? *shakes head* MPJ-DK 16:13, 12 May 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.