Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron McKelvey

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 no consensus to delete. Mangojuice^talk 16:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron McKelvey

Ron McKelvey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable former con artist. One incident does not make a person notable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I'd also point out that, as per WP:BLP1E, when "a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime," a separate bio page may not be needed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is notable because its the last time a player fradulently played Div I NCAA football that we know of. This was a huge story in college football in late '95 and early '96. SI and many other publications did stories on it, but I haven't located any links for them yet. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - No opinion on the notability yet, but I've added a few possible sources to the talk page. If it is kept, it probably should be moved to Ron Weaver. --Onorem♠Dil 15:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I think Ron Weaver would be good, but I think most folks still remember the story as Ron McKelvey, because he played the entire season under that name. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Perhaps, but lots of sources still doesn't make him notable enough. There's still the WP:BLP1E component of bio articles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The info checks out, and it got significant coverage at the time. Should be a redirect to Ron Weaver, as suggested by OddibeKerfeld. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I vote keep, It is significant and Is not hurting anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.71.129 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep:I remember this. It was a big story. EdRooney (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete seems to fall just short of WP:BIO.--Sallicio 09:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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.