Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Slattery (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. For now. While he has gained slightly more notability, it seems that the discusion (not counting the obvious SPAs) is that he hasn't garnered enough quite yet. I'm not salting it though, per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, as he might become more notable over the coming months. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Slattery

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted after a sock-infested AfD back in October of last year, for lacking verifiable notability by the standards of similar subjects. Whilst this article qualifies under CSD-G4 as a repost (it's the same article, only with slightly less information), a 14-month gap is enough to warrant community input again to see if consensus has changed. A polite note in advance: new editors, we value your opinions but this is not a majority vote, it is a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 09:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per CSD-G4. Obviously not notable. Self-published sources do not establish notability. Only sources I can find are self-published or social networking sites.SnottyWong talk 12:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedly delete per G4 Notability has not changed in the intervening months. Angryapathy (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 - Not notable. Lithorien (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, also clearly doesn't qualify for G4 due to post-initial-AFD events. The prior AFD was a debacle, unfortunately. There is more evidence of notability than there was previously (how much more notable I can't say); for example, the subject's work has been anthologized in a national best-of-the-year volume [1]. The subject has recently, it seems, been named an artist-in-residence by an apparently notable Australian cultural organization [2]. The awards won by the subject, including awards received since the previous AFD, are certainly no less notable than the awards which by (unhappy) consensus demonstrate notability in other fields, like those for pornographic performers; and he's received several potentially notable awards since the prior AFD took place. I'd say the available sourcing qualifies him as just notable enough. Certainly shouldn't be salted if deleted; he's at the very least advancing toward notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has no important information, it is little more than a bunch of lists which is clearly what WP:NOT is written for, and it seems terrible. Delete and Salt for say 12 months. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - none of his books are "self-published." Capstaine 22:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC) — Capstaine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
RE: Snottywong's comments: NONE of these sources are either self-published or social networking sources. Debut publication is with a major Australia poetry publisher, and all anthology publications ditto. User: Capstaine 11:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep although young, these are significant awards and publications. User:Sally Karl Marx 22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC) — Sally Karl Marx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closing admin: It's pretty obvious that Sally Karl Marx (talk · contribs) and Capstaine (talk · contribs) are the same person. I've asked SKM to restrict themselves to one account from now on. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 12:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Setting aside from the conduct of editors involved, there does seem to be a claim to notability for the subject, as he was listed in The Best Australian Poems of 2009, what might be considered a peer reviewed journal, and has other mentions from sources that can be used to add verifiable content. I feel there is enough outside sources to confirm notability, though the page would have to be rewritten to reflect only information in credible sources. Mrathel (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2009 (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.