Deletion of Jack McClellan

Comment: The notion of a flash-in-the-pan  works a lot better if you don't have a ''year's'' worth of cited sources, as this article does.  User:Debate's and DGG's assertions notwithstanding, I can find nothing in  requiring criminal convictions before reporting on |reliably sourced information about the subject's involvements with the authorities.  Moreover, while  correctly states that we should exercise due caution about outing negative comments that a subject might reasonably not want revealed, a fellow who proudly proclaims the information on his website and on the talk show circuit (and, indeed, the precipitating factors in the world noticing him in the first place) might reasonably be described as having blown the gaffe already
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:BLP||WP:RS||WP:BLP)

Comment: I say weak because I don't see an assertion of notability persay but, have recently missed assertions in other articles and the article is sourced to some very reliable 3rd parties. If it violates  though than it needs to go
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: What is there about numerous reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage, such as the Associated Press, The Oregonian,  Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and CBS News, that does not satisfy  and ? Several months of time span in the news coverage is not "fifteen minutes." Arguments of "IDONTLIKEIT" or "HECREEPSMEOUT" do not trump Wikipedia notability policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:N)

Comment: this doesn't appear to be a flash-in-the-pan or  type of situation at all
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per the fact that he is the subject of multiple published sources per .  However, I have some reservation due to the high potential for  violations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BLP)