- Mario Cerrito (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Nominated on February 3rd, 2022 to determine notability. It received 5 Keep Votes by established editors Alansohn Editorofthewiki (EDDY) Roman Spinner Lamona Saiskysat against 1 Delete vote. On February 10th it was closed by Geschicte as "keep." Lasting only 4 days, it was reopened by Geschicte after the original AfD lister posted to Geschicte talk wall asking for a reopen consideration. In the next re-list, the consensus was split and Relisted again on February 23. After one delete vote, it gained two "keep votes" by established editors NemesisAT and MrsSnoozyTurtle. Within hours after the second Keep vote, Seraphimblade closed the discussion as delete days before the re-list was set to be up and claimed the consensus was "clearly to delete.” This ideology is far from what it reads in the discussion. It leans keep and if at worse it should be Overturn to no consensus. There is plenty of verified strong sources in the article (35) and that was mentioned by the contributors to the discussion. The premise of the ones who said delete was sock puppetry contributing to the article but if sock puppets contributed to the President of the United States article that doesn't take away from notability. An article should not not exist because of others misuse of the platform. Or in other words, sock puppets don't disqualify an individual from notability and especially for this article it was proven notable and then ignored.
Overturn to no consensus is my stance. WexfordUK (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WexfordUK (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock [reply]
- Overturn to no consensus while the AfD was plagued by sockpuppetry, there were plenty of keep votes made in good faith. Per the close, I discounted all "keep" votes that weren't from "more experienced editors" which leaves us with Alansohn, Editorofthewiki, Roman Spinner, Lamona, Saiskysat, myself, and MrsSnoozyTurtle. On the delete side we have the nominator Tamzin, Oaktree b, Eggishorn, Anton.bersh, Liz, and Doczilla. The closer did not discuss the strength of the arguments on the delete and keep sides and thus I'm assuming each has equal weight. Thus, we have seven keep votes vs six delete votes and therefore the statement that "the consensus is clearly to delete" is completely false. NemesisAT (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus - I had seen previous articles for Cerrito and I was ready to immediately start an AfD when I saw the newest version pop up on my watchlist. But in reviewing the references, I saw that the notability standard was met with in-depth independent reliable and verifiable references and I voted Keep, as did several other experienced editors, all of whom specifically cited the sources as meeting standards. While I would have closed this as a Keep, the claim that consensus was "clearly to delete" is simply not backed up by the actual discussion that took place. Alansohn (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse even accepting that the raw numbers of experienced editors commenting were about equal, WP:NHC applies. The delete !voters such as myself all explicitly addressed sourcing quality and found it wanting. That will not change if the close is overturned. The churnalism and local human-interest stories that the argument for keep rests on do not meet the definition of WP:SIGCOV as it has usually been interpreted in AfD discussions about BLP subjects and the UPE and socking concerns cannot be dismissed out-of-hand as irrelevant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The delete voters did not "all explicitly address sourcing quality". Doczilla's vote read "Delete and salt. Also, do not give into the socks." while Liz's vote was a form of WP:OTHERSTUFF. NemesisAT (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not true. Or did you miss the long discussion about the value of sources from NJ.com because we went back and forth about that at great length. Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. I cannot see how "the consensus is clearly to delete" if a greater number of experienced voters said "keep" than the number of experienced voters who said "delete". There are obvious AfD nominations of individuals who are so non-notable that even the most hardcore inclusionist would vote to delete, but Mario Cerrito is definitely not one of those. I voted "keep" simply because anyone with 48 inline cites and a good number of credits listed on IMDb appears to be automatically notable. Of course, mine was not the only "keep" vote, with the experienced "keep" votes ultimately constituting a slim majority. At the very least, the article should have been retained as "no consensus". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus, besides fixing the first relist, I had no other particular involvement in this, though I did follow it somewhat and admit to being surprised, and perplexed, by the consensus reached by the closer. The rationale does seem a little too much like a head count when this is not what AfD is about and there was no evidence of the !votes being analysed as such. There seems to be enough credible expressions of keep as well as delete and I would have thought this is a classic "no consensus" conclusion. It probably doesn't help that the closer jumped in with this closure perhaps a bit premature and when the weight of opinion had shifted slightly closer to keep from the previous relist. Alas, I don't think the outcome can be considered as being explicit. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting parallel conversation yesterday evening: User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Mario_Cerrito_AfD. I think the nuances of DRV and a complicated AfD are a challenge for a new editor, but I wasn't able to fully assist WexfordUK before I had to go offline. As I mentioned there, I did not have time to delve into the merits of the various !votes, but have no issue with Seraphimblade's "early" close after my relist. These month long AfDs don't help with the backlog and if one can be closed, it should be. Star Mississippi 23:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to No Consensus as per nominator and other contributors. Sockpuppetry was not a reason to discard the views of the established voters, only a reason to ignore the statements by the sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to No Consensus per above arguments. Deb (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus I believe its against Wikipedia guideline to delete a article which has more vote in AFD. Hope we should also consider the above points in favor.°Saiskysat (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- First, it's not about vote counting. Second, you have 25 edits, how did you find your way to a deletion review discussion? Just curious given the sockpuppetry and paid editing surrounding articles about this person. Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse good close, with much better arguments by the delete voters. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I expect to be bashed here for not discussing the details of this AfD discussion but I just wanted to comment, how can we have 3 pages about this individual salted, so as to prevent ANY article recreation about him, and yet still he still has an article on Wikipedia? I understand that this recent article may be of higher quality than previous articles but I think the fact that every previous deletion decision on articles about Mario Cerrito has led to page deletions might have influenced the closer of this particular AFD discussion. Should we just accept that if article creators can find a version of a person's name that hasn't been salted, then article recreation is an okay idea? Because in other cases, an attempt at article creation at an unsalted page title, when the previous articles have been deleted and their page titles have been salted, has often led to speedy deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Liz: It's a perfectly reasonable expression to make and the previous salting will influence some no matter what, but the issue here seemed to be more around the socking, although there was definitely some credible expressions of keep. I think going with NC is the closest to satisfying both sides, as it doesn't conclude it outright as keep, but in the same respect I don't think, looking at this afd alone, that it's a straight delete (and I think you have to judge each article and AfD on its own merit). As is often the case in DR, those who voted against the conclusion will want to overturn and those who were on the same side will endorse, which is how this is playing out. A fresh AfD may be best here. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bungle I agree. As much as I was in favor of keep in the AfD- I think it’s really split down the middle (slight lean keep) and I feel a closing of no consensus of the AfD was merited. Hence why most are saying here overturn to no consensus. It for sure wasn’t a delete and it for sure wasn’t a keep.WexfordUK (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock[reply]
- Endorse (did not !vote in the discussion, but did comment) - Given that WexfordUK was a 2-day old account when it interacted with the AfD, that Roman Spinner was improperly notified as I and other editors have argued in the discussion, and that Saiskysat is not an established editor (25 edits, first AfD ever, return from inactivity for this AfD only, including Deletion review), my final tally is 7-5 for deletion. (Del: Tamzin, Oaktree b, Eggishorn, Feline Hymnic, Anton.bersh, Liz, Doczilla; Keep: Alansohn, Editorofthewiki, Lamona, NemesisAT, MrsSnoozyTurtle). Strength of arguments being roughly dependent on whether local sources constituted reliable, significant coverage or not, I believe the closer was correct in closing this as delete. WP:NOTPROMO concerns were also not sufficiently addressed by keep voters. Pilaz (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I also take note that the three editors that I have excluded from my tally have taken part in this deletion review. Pilaz (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pilaz: The closer literally says he’s a “deletionist” on his page. Another closer relisted this article on AFD to gain a more thorough consensus. It got one delete vote and then two keeps and was deleted a few hours after it was leaning keep. That is what this deletion review is about. It wasn’t even set to be over until 3-4 days after he closed it prematurely. WexfordUK (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock[reply]- 7-5 for deletion is not "consensus is clearly to delete" as the closer suggested. WP:NOTPROMO wasn't mentioned in the nominator's rationale so I'm unsure as to why keep voters were expected to dispute it? NemesisAT (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. If new deletion rationales appear in the deletion discussion and no one disputes them, it's probably because they have valid foundations. Pilaz (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus After reading the AfD it absolutely looks to be No Consensus. Many arguments for both sides.ValidatedKing (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock[reply]- Noting for the record that I have just blocked the OP and another one of the !voters in this discussion as block-evading socks of the same user who plagued the original AfD with socks. Girth Summit (blether) 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is perhaps not too surprising and the entire debate really has been unfortunately compromised by such activity. I still stand by my assessment of the AfD but would encourage another run of it, with much more scrutiny of participants. Only if several who !voted keep choose to endorse in this DR may that change things somewhat, but I think notwithstanding, a fresh debate may be appropriate. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
