Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Sena


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 09:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Sena

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete as per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PERP The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy It certainly was reported worldwide : I have included the New Zealand press and other international news sources. I think the crimes are so mind boggling, as to make this criminal and his crimes extremely noteworthy. Sex with the dog - boggles the mind. Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as textbook instance of situation for which WP:BLP1E was created. The subject is only covered in the context of a single event, the person is otherwise likely to remain a low-profile individual, and the event itself was not significant enough to merit its own Wikipedia article. All boxes ticked. It's WP:BLP1E, and should be deleted. As the person who tagged the article for notability, I note that the de-PROD of this article was conducted by an editor who "did not think to look" for a talk page discussion before de-PRODding and removing the notability template. When challenged, the de-PRODding editor compared the case to Jeffery Dahmer, then immediately backed off when asked to show similar levels of coverage in reliable sources. Subsequent edits by the same editor included changing the infobox to feature a prison, for some reason. Whatever is driving this behavior, it's not helpful to our readers, and it's not grounded in an adequate understanding of policy or guidelines, particularly around biographies of living persons. Bakazaka (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is not very collegial of you to be this offended and insulted because your PROD was removed. WP:PERP is the relevant policy which also benefits our readers. This was a criminal that garnered world-wide attention for extremely unusual deviant behavior. You can try to fit it this article into WP:BLP1E but that only serves you, and not our readers. I think by now you should realize that for every Wikipedia policy there is a contradictory one, and your interpretation of WP:POLICY is myopic and tailored to your own viewpoint. So lets keep comments to the subject AfD and not slip and slide into this abyss of personal attacks. I can't believe I gave you a barnstar for civility. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't put the PROD on the article, and actually you have given me two barnstars (but one was from one of your previous accounts). Bakazaka (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, after I added references and then I removed your notability template. You restored it. We had a discussion on the talk page. Then I gave you a barnstar for civility. But...back to the AfD. How many WP:BLP1Es have been sentenced to 54 life terms for their unusual and abhorrent behavior? I am guessing there has never been a WP:BLP1E that matches this description. However WP:PERP fits. Lightburst (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E is policy. The conditions for deletion under policy are satisfied, as I itemized above. Bakazaka (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plausibly re-title to the crime and not the individual due to BLP1E, though it seems that RSes mainly title per the individual in this case. The crime itself has had national coverage dating back to 2014 (e.g. ) had has had wide international coverage since (e.g. NZ Herald). As the subject has been convicted, WP:BLPCRIME is not longer an issue. Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep As WP:CRIME demanded, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article if the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual, Sex with a dog or multiple counts of sexual abuse and child abuse, forcing his seven children in having sex with him are not usual!Saff V. (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLPCRIME is misapplied in this case due both to convictions and to wide coverage. Note that especially in light of the fact that two of his ex-wives (not sure how many ex-wives he had,) were also convicted, renaming the crime is probably a good move.  Las Vegas sex ring, used in many sources, might work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)  Blocked sock. Bakazaka (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Notes WP:PERP and WP:CRIME are redirects to the same notability guideline. In contrast, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS are content policies. Citing a notability guideline, right or wrong, does not override content policy. And of course WP:BLPCRIME is not relevant for a convicted criminal, which is probably why no one has used it to argue for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - brilliant,, simply brilliant.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:45, 9 August 2019 (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.