Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Sernio (2nd nomination)


 * 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; insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Please note that by long precedent an AfD closed as "no consensus" can be relisted at any time. Chick Bowen 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe Sernio
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wholly fails all criteria listed at Notability_(people). There is no verfiable independent coverage on this actor. The Wikipedia article has a history of WP:COI. The only article about him cited seems to be a local newspaper story about a local struggling actor, but even this citation only references a free press release site to which anyone can post (other citations in the article are also to this non-verifiable and wholly unreliable source). On his websites claims to have had a few, small and/or walk-on acting roles in North American network soap operas but these don't seem to be independently verifiable. His only lead role so far is in an independent film which has not been released. The only other sources cited in the article are promotional websites for projects he's been in. Lastly, the article carries no assertion of importance or significance, nor do the cited/available sources support one. Hence, if not for the earlier AfD (which was closed as a no consensus keep pending independent sources), this would be a speedy deletion candidate (CSD A7). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete suppose I've given other people enough time before jumping in. For openness purposes people should note that I am the nom at the original AfD. My reasons for deletion are absolutely the same as in the nom statement there which are basically the article's subject failing the notability and verifiability criteria. If anyone wishes to doubt the work I put into trying to get the article itself up to snuff and in trying to help prove the subject as notable they just need to look at my various contributions to the article, the article talkpage, the talkpages of the contributors, and to the various noticeboards. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (sits back munching popcorn) I'll morally abstain. I am impressed with the article subject's friends' attempts at verifying he work to date. I can't - if it were up to me, I'd keep it, but my yardstick and much of the community is sufficiently at variance on notability that I am hard pressed to vote keep and maintain credibility. I was sorta hoping for his sake that his summer flick'd do well. I guess it didn't as we'd have heard about it by now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In all honesty if it could be done within the policies and guidelines of the project I'd like to see more articles on actors/actresses and such but, that is a personal bias and I can't let that get in the way of "encyclopedia" building and whatnot. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete what's effectively the CV of somebody who hasn't yet emerged from obscurity. (I do like the wall, though.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate everyone’s help, and participation on this matter. I apologize if I did not obey proper guidelines for the article, but I hope we can keep it and continue to let it grow. I have worked my entire life to make a name for myself, and its working with the support of many of my family and friends. I spend everyday either on set, or traveling, and if not that updating everything i can on the net as well as personal information and career information for anyone interested. It is my life. My friends,Some of whom were just trying to help enter in all of my information on Wikipedia not knowing the guidelines or rules for Wikipedia also appologize. Hope we can come to some sort of agreement. If not I thank you all for your continued support and time that you all put into this. Joe Sernio -71.250.127.26 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The policies and guidelines were pointed out numerous times as well as multiple requests for people to give them a read (at all the various IP addresses and userIDs you used). I've really got no problem with including you at wikipedia but, you've got to meet those policies and guidelines which were pointed out in order to have an article. Why not pick an ID, include some of the information from the article on the userpage (in accordance with that policy/guideline) and contribute to some other articles in a constructive manner. For example, the Vinny Vella article could use some tidying up (though you should remember your WP:COI and only contribute those things that can be meet the policies/guidelines and be written from a neutral point of view. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. You seem like a decent guy and I appreciate your candor in your comment above. I wish you the best and if you get a break then you'll get an article -- but do wait for somebody else to write it. -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Above and beyond the claims of notability included in the article, it is utterly disruptive to initiate a second AfD just weeks after the previous attempt failed. Consensus is utterly meaningless if we will see a never-ending stream of second, third, fourth (ad infinitum) AfDs when the "correct" result is not reached. Alansohn (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been more than "just weeks". Please be so kind as to point out these claims of importance/significance you say are there. Could you also please let me know which of the sources you consider to be reliable and 3rd party covering the subject in a significant manner? Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The last AfD was closed with no consensus because there was no consensus. Moreover, there are no verifiable independent sources to verify any assertion of notability. I think the COI and unwillingness to discuss or follow sourcing policy has been disruptive, not the 2nd AfD meant to stop it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2008 (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.