Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Slattery (poet)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Slattery (poet)

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

WP:BLP1E, and the event in question is a teapot tempest over alleged plagiarism in a redlinked poetry prize. Original claims to notability evaporate somewhat when you find they are a different Andrew Slattery. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same Andrew Slattery. Did you read the talk page of the article?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If they are one person I'm saying it's at best a borderline wp:BLP1E problem - the award is a second notable event. But given the accusations of plagiarism we are very very deep into wp:BLP territory if we can't get who's who definitively sorted out. If Andrew Slattery the screenwriter is different from Andrew Slattery the poet then that leaves us in quite a lot of trouble. ~~I'm saying Delete under wp:BLP unless we can prove things beyond reasonable doubt.~~ Which, apparently, they are. In whcih case Keep Neonchameleon (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that the Andrew Slattery being discussed is both a poet and a screenwriter - there are reliable sources, including newspaper coverage, that goes back to his earlier awards making the connection clear, and Andrew Slattery used to bill himself as a screenwriter and poet prior to the plagiarism accusations emerging. There appears to be some reputation management going on that has heavily involved Wikipedia. Whether or not the screenwriting and poetry awards are enough to overcome BLP1E is a different issue, though. - Bilby (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same person. That is absolutely established. The person saying otherwise on OTRS is a liar. JzG, you've been used. Hesperian 00:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multi-award winning minor poet involved in a major international scandal. Heavily referenced. Factual and neutral. Don't be fooled by the army of sockpuppets muddying the waters with lies and vandalism. Hesperian 00:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments from Bilby and Hesperian. Also, the warning from Hesperian regarding the issue suggests a very actual careful read of things by closing person, rather than a superficial analysis satusuro 02:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject would be notable for awards only, and the plagiarims incident would be notable per se -all together, we have a BLP notable for multiple, independent events. There are WP:UNDUE issues for sure, but deletion is not cleanup. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:35, 17 December 2013 (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.