Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Olofson

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 redirect to United States v. Olofson. Clear consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Olofson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically a BLP1E with less than stellar sourcing. The sources that are good are less about Olofson and more about the event, the other sources aren't really good enough to sustain the page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a straightforward WP:BLP1E, the sources definitely "cover the person only in the context of a single event" and the "person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". --Cerebellum (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the IP and RightCowLeftCoast. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States v. Olofson. I agree David Olofson does not merit an article but the court case was arguably notable. It was the subject of appellate review giving the decision (see United States v. Olofson, No. 08-2294) precedental status in the 7th US Circuit. Olofson's case was also a minor cause célèbre in conservative media and among gun rights advocates. 71.35.126.96 (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to United States v. Olofson; the subject has received significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources, including from CNN and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. That being said, most of the coverage is regarding a single event and I can see WP:BLP1E applying to the individual, and as the event is the reason for the coverage a redirect to the event would be acceptable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States v. Olofson. The case may arguably be notable. The man is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States v. Olofson. I couldn't have said it better myself Necrothesp. — -dainomite 23:37, 5 March 2013 (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.