Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Olson (activist)

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. Sandstein 07:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Olson (activist)[edit]

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

BLP only known for one incident in 2011 of protest/graffiti that escalated into a trial and acquittal. This was covered in the news (mostly local San Diego) at the time (until the completion of the trial), and there doesn't seem to be any coverage since (and nothing significant has been added to the article). This is a single event per WP:BLP1E - and the subject "otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". MB 23:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the nominator; Olson made headlines for a (frankly ridiculous) court case, but with the exception of this random quote from him I can't find a single source not directly connected to the case itself. BLP1E all the way. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Achieved brief news coverage for one incident in 2013, nothing before or since. Clearly not a person of continuing notability even in San Diego. Plazak (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very strong example of a BLP1E article. It also has NPOV problems. The later could be fixed, the former can not unless Mr. Olson somehow again enters the public view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written like an autobiography. Instaurare (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator of Delete !voters here seems to get things twisted. Notability is not temporary. We do not delete articles per reasonings as IDONTLIIKEIT comments above. Thinking that someone is noted for ridiculous things is POV. clearly notable person, plenty of good sourcing. also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, I'm curious how you think that citing policy (BLP1E) is considered an IDONTLIKEIT !vote. My comment regarding the court case was not to suggest that the reason for his 15 minutes of fame disqualified him for a page, but simply commentary on the case itself. According to BLP1E he is not a notable person (for all of the reasons stated above) which is what I based my !vote on. Primefac (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ notes "plenty of good sourcing." but it is all coverage of the 2011 incident. Mr. Olson's background seems to be nearly completely undocumented. If he were notable, I would expect more media interest (and therefore sourcing) in him as a person. Plazak (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2016 (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.