Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Rewald
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Davewild (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ron Rewald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible hoax. No listing of this player at NFL.com nor http://www.pro-football-reference.com (under name and DOB searches). ISBN for the book reference supplied is for a different book. Article creator shares the name of the article subject. Prod removed with a partial google search link given as the reason, but other than a bizarre CIA related story at http://www.kycbs.net/Rewald.htm (which I doubt is a reliable source), I can't see anything that proves notability. The-Pope (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think a bit of the football "career" might not be a hoax, [1], I've been unable to find anything else, and even the dubious CIA story doesn't seem to suggest that he actually played a game at the national level. As there is a lack of sources demonstrating notability under WP:GNG, and the lack of appearances (and verification of those appearances) required by Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#American_football.2FCanadian_football, I don't see an argument for notability. In addition, I'm also somewhat concerned about the potential for WP:COATRACKing the spy material, which would require signficantly more in the way of WP:RS than we have so far to warrant inclusion. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep as per excellent rescue by Pburka, I also will go apply a trout to myself, for a mistaken interpretation of the sources I saw. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteunless it turns out to be true...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Nice save, someone's getting a barnstar for that one!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep and improve. Seems to have been the defendant in a sensational court case in the 1980s. Rewald Convicted in Hawaiian Trial Jack Lord tangled in real-life fraud case Press: CIA vs. ABC Ex-Officer Not Guilty In Spy Case Con man Rewald directs a Los Angeles talent agency. Pburka (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten the article based on some of the sources I identified. Pburka (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm still not convinced that he is notable - is this now a WP:BLP1E article? Should the real article be about the crime or the company rather than about the person? I see you
havehad a merge request in the Company->Person direction - I'm thinking it should be merged Person -> Company - only leaving the merge request open for only 7.5 hours isn't very useful, either. I'll leave this AfD open and redirect the Delsort tags to bring in people more used to editing criminal related articles to decide. Reading some of the public comments on one of the supplied sources makes this article a bit of a vandalism target - there seems to be a few people still angry/involved in the case out there. Amazed that the criminal part never made it in the article until now. And Pburka - I'm not doubting your efforts, motives or the reliability of the references you've found - it is just that this is way outside of my normal editing sphere (which is sports or Australian topics), so I'll prefer for others to decide. The-Pope (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Surely you must be convinced of notability? The only thing we're discussing now is whether the article should be named Ron Rewald or Bishop, Baldwin, Rewald, Dillingham and Wong. I'll argue that the company is much less interesting than the individual. Ron Rewald was the driving personality behind the company. Sunlin Wong appears to have been sucked in; he immediately pleaded guilty when the house of cards collapsed. Additionally, reliable sources indicate that Rewald's CIA connections predate the company. Additionally, Rewald's history of fraud predates the company. He was already claiming to be a Marquette graduate in the 1960s, as the football sources show. He also had an earlier bankruptcy, but I don't have any more info about it. I think that a quick review of Google news results will show that Rewald was who the press was talking about, not BBRDW. Pburka (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To the extent that there's consensus to move the article to "an article about the event, not the person", I wouldn't use the firm name, it'd be "Ron Rewald investment fraud case" (not quite that), but something that makes it clear that the article subject is about the events (the cons and their related trial and victims).
As I read BLP1E, Rewald was a major player in a minor event, and the relevant clause in BLP1E says that in the case where the event is discussed in sources in general via the name of the individual (the example they give is Tank Man), that an article named after the individual may be appropriate.(Struck out material was in error: I was quoting BIO1E, not BLP1E.) More than happy to leave this conversation open longer for additional voices. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To the extent that there's consensus to move the article to "an article about the event, not the person", I wouldn't use the firm name, it'd be "Ron Rewald investment fraud case" (not quite that), but something that makes it clear that the article subject is about the events (the cons and their related trial and victims).
- Surely you must be convinced of notability? The only thing we're discussing now is whether the article should be named Ron Rewald or Bishop, Baldwin, Rewald, Dillingham and Wong. I'll argue that the company is much less interesting than the individual. Ron Rewald was the driving personality behind the company. Sunlin Wong appears to have been sucked in; he immediately pleaded guilty when the house of cards collapsed. Additionally, reliable sources indicate that Rewald's CIA connections predate the company. Additionally, Rewald's history of fraud predates the company. He was already claiming to be a Marquette graduate in the 1960s, as the football sources show. He also had an earlier bankruptcy, but I don't have any more info about it. I think that a quick review of Google news results will show that Rewald was who the press was talking about, not BBRDW. Pburka (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - well sourced. notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though I'm open to arguments about renaming. There is definitely an article worth keeping here, it's just a question of whether it's the person, the company, the fraud case, or several of the above. This was a huge case, and I'm surprised that we have so little about it. cmadler (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2011 (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.