Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Selenski


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Selenski

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There's not a lot of coverage here. The article is only about his crimes, so as is so often the case, we don't have a biography, we have an article on crimes. I checked Google news and there was a court date in July. Got an article for each of the the first two days, but that's it. I can't find where the jury decided, nothing about a verdict. Maybe it's Google-fail on my part, but I'm just not seeing it. Appears to fail WP:PERP. Lara 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I am puzzled that a BLP violation was left in the first sentence of the article, even as someone looked at it and presumably did the WP:BEFORE research before nominating it. Of the present refs, one from a TV station. which only links to present news and not a story about the subject of the article, and a broken link to CNN coverage. The local TV station has some historical coverage of Selenski at . That coverage says he was not convicted of the original murder charges but convicted of abusing corpses by burning the bodies  and convicted in July 2009 of home invasion in 2003, and that he still faces charges for 2 murders. Just not seeing that WP:BIO is satisfied, and it seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. If he is eventually convicted of some murders, or gets secondary coverage, or has some enduring societal effects, an article could be recreated. Even with 1190 news stories since 2003, it still seems like routine crime and punishment. Edison (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I edit conflicted with you while making changes to the article, but I didn't realize it until several minutes later, after I returned to that tab. To be clear, the whole article was a BLP violation at that point, considering no link in the article was active and the article is wholly negative. That's why we need a CSD option for blatant BLP violations. Lara  18:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see enough coverage to pass WP:BIO. Kevin (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the excellent arguments above. RMHED   18:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the additional information from recent GNews articles, including .    DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 19 October 2009 (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.