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. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Slattery[edit]

Andrew Slattery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Lack of notability Yumegusa (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of notability is an undertsatement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The linked prizes (Roland Robinson Literary Award and Harri Jones Memorial Prize for Poetry) give the illusion of notability but both the prizes are of dubious notability themselves. Of course, Slattery is no less notable than half the musical groups that somehow manage to be included here, but that's not saying much! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Consistent with WP:BIO, "the person has received a notable award" (AWGIE Awards) [1]. WWGB (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an "additional criterion", which counts for little if WP:BIO#Basic_criteria fail to be met. Moreover, the subject fails utterly to meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria specific to his field.--Yumegusa (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The ABC reference (reliable and independent enough for most) attests to four of his awards and states His poems have appeared in literary journals, newspapers, magazines and on radio throughout Australia, Europe, North America and Asia. That's approaching notability for mine. Murtoa (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has clearly sustained a level of significant publishing and prizewon achievements. User:Words Australia 05:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Words Australia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Having your work published in national newspapers and literary journals is a noteworthy benchmark in my books. User:Australian Reviewer 05:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Australian Reviewer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've won a few awards and had poetry published frequently in anthologies and journals, but I'm modest enough to realise I'm not notable in the overall scheme of things. If winning a few obscure awards and having writings published in poetry mags was really a valid criterion for having an article in WP, there'd be room for little else here. Is anyone seriously claiming that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE (criteria for authors, filmmakers and other creative practitioners)? Because if an author doesn't meet these criteria s/he's not notable; that's what WP:CREATIVE is there for.
    --Yumegusa (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's not what WP:CREATIVE is there for. You'll note that regarding additional notability criteria such as WP:CREATIVE, two things apply - Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included and Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. I revert to the overriding consideration - A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject - which I think Slattery meets. Murtoa (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whilst not 'famous,' certainly a "noteable" enough name around the European literary magazine scene. And perhaps, given that Slattery lives in Australia, is of note in itself! The Roland Robinson Literary Award and Harri Jones Memorial Prize for Poetry are not Nobels or Bookers, right, though popularity doesn't equate with notability. And saying that the sentence "Lack of notability is an undertsatement" is not useful criticism is an understatement. User:Rachael Dept Engliska 08:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Rachael Dept Engliska (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Yumegusa, upon a brief check of both the WP:Creative page and a random list of poets from the UK, what percentage of those 312+ poets do you think adhere to the criteria? User:Rachael Dept Engliska 08:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly he has published wider than other ‘minor’ poets (eg. Jaya Savige, David Musgrave, Samuel Wagan Watson, Bronwyn Lea and B. R. Dionysius) with pages here on Wikipedia. User:MassachusettsPoets 09:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • — MassachusettsPoets (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Pointing out the there are other pages which fail to meet the necessary criteria is a very weak argument for keeping one.--Yumegusa (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep§ Slattery’s page could be effortlessly enhanced – a quick G shows 30+ references that could make the page more encyclopaedic. User:MassachusettsPoets 09:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. An admin might investigate the apparent sockpuppets dominating this discussion. WWGB (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A daily growing web-base means a daily growing Wiki-base and Slattery's noteworthy poetry clearly meets the criteria. User:MassachusettsPoets talk (talk) 9:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Googlecheck = published widely. User:Words Australia 05:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Words Australia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see WP:BIO#Invalid_criteria: "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits)", "When using Google to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links."--Yumegusa (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've picked up on WWGB and opened a SSP case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Words Australia with User:Words Australia temporarily blocked.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO and has provoked a sock flood. Stifle (talk) 23:51, 11 October 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.