Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Sernio

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 NO CONSENSUS. default keep momentarily. issues with sourcing noted, and it does straddle notability. I doubt consensus will be acheived this time round. I think three months will be sufficient and place a note on the article talk page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sernio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article's subject fails WP:N, WP:ENTERTAINER,WP:V, and probably a few more policies and/or guidelines. Those are the bare facts of the case. Additionally, though perhaps slightly less important is the single purpose nature of a number of the articles contributors where the only purpose of the accounts are to edit this article and/or add the subject to other articles. There is also the creation of articles for the apparent sole purpose of adding weight to the subjects notability, specifically Currents (Magazine) for which the subject is the "Director of Web Development. I've tried to work with the other contributors and even made suggestions on the article's talkpage. I've continued searching for things that may help the subject meet WP:N and WP:V but, without success. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWe are editing as we are told. They are all tru facts, and we have all refrences that were needed. Please reconsider —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.187.106 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional keep Well-written, thoroughly referenced article on a discrete, noteworthy topic of interest to our readers. Issues with editors are WP:PROBLEMS logically independent of the worthiness for inclusion of the topic. I see nothing of concern here. I will revise this point of view if compelling arguments are made to the contrary. Skomorokh 13:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although I agree there are alot of references in the article they are predominantly primary source (including being covered by a magazine for which the subject works), non-reliable (youtube), or trivial, etc. It fails both WP:N and WP:V Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep a poorly-written article from a Wikipedia perspective, but one that does provide sources to support a claim of notability. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see above about the sources. Please note I spent awhile trying to improve the article as well as trying to find proof of the subjects notability before coming here without success. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or merge with Love Monkey or whatever is his most important role. Non-notable person about whom I would say there's been little press in a source that meets WP:RS, as can be seen from zero google news mentions. [1] . The references given to provide the illusion of sources, are mainly websites. Sticky Parkin 17:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Per extension of WP:NEWBIES please leave a note for the IP on top and the article creator how to find this content if the article is deleted. Seems likely that the subject's notability will rise with their acting career. Banjeboi 12:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply/Question Banjeboi can you clarify what you mean? I've notified the creator and other main contributors of the AfD but, am unsure of what other notices are needed. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mean that if the article is deleted, showing the two newbies where the last version can be found might ease the frustration with the article being deleted for now. Banjeboi 14:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm not sure how to do that and based on the articles history and other contribs I think there may be more than two newbies. Do we need to undertake this notification or does the closing admin? Also, when does the article need to be relisted for consensus purposes? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2008 (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.