Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Olaf Estenson


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Eric Olaf Estenson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable per WP:BLP1E. Only reference is a broken link Closedmouth (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I started out thinking that may this was a hoax—it sounds pretty outlandish—but there may be some truth to it. I found a brief reference on GlobalSecurity.org, which is a reliable source. I also found many, many references that had directly copied this Wikipedia entry. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - per brief reference on GlobalSecurity.org mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete A one sentence mention comes no where close to significant coverage, which is the case in BabbaQ's source.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'm not convinced at all. He was "swiftly and promptly arrested" for an attempted nuclear theft? How serious could have that attempt been? No police records and media coverage on the internet, which is very unlikely when it comes to such a terrorism act.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  14:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Still feel confident that the single source is good enough to justify a keep for now too let users to have a chance to do further research. One source is better then no source. Especially as that one source confirms the articles claims.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2012 (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.