Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Slattery (poet) (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Slattery (poet)[edit]

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

This article has a long-standing controversy over whether the subject is the same person as Andrew Slattery, a screenwriter. There's OTRS input that strongly suggests that the two are separate, but the sources don't make a distinction - or at least searching for sources that do not, reveals them, which may simply be confirmation bias or might be a reflection of someone who is not, in fact, actually notable. Without the screenwriter content, we have an absolutely classic WP:BLP1E. With the screenwriter content we have more than that, but it's far from clear whether that is correct or not. The lack of any substantial independent biographical coverage discussing the confusion (or lack of it) is symptomatic of the fact that the majority of sources that mention the poet, do so in the context of the plagiarism claim.

In the end it's my view that we don't have good enough sources to be sure of the content, beyond the one event, which per WP:BLP1E should therefore be covered as an event not as a biography. I support a move and refactoring, but I would like a solid consensus behind this one way or the other because it's a recurrent source of complaints to OTRS. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your persistence is commendable, but you had a chance to understand that there is consensus for keep, and it is not clear why you are wasting our time. Speedy keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

difficult - this page has been a long term problem, the edits pushing for its inclusion on wikipedia until the plagiarism story, after which time there has been a heap of obfuscation. I tend to think this was notable enough to veer into keep territory. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is notable. Article is accurate and fully sourced. Since the controversy, the subject of the article has aggressively modified their entire web presence to attempt to manufacture the myth that the poet involved in the scandal is not the person wanting to go forward as a screenwriter. But anyone with the ability to drive the Internet Archive (and previously Google cache) can easily find years of "poet and screenwriter" self-promotion. You can also find the same in the deleted revisions of Andrew Slattery (now a dab page).[1] Also I have screenshots. The subject of the article is now abusing OTRS to try to dupe Wikipedia; unfortunately some OTRS operatives have been duped, and seem to think that their sekret OTRS emails trump reliable sources. "It's a recurrent source of complaints to OTRS" is not a valid reason to delete — it boils down to "We should delete this article because the subject is a pain in the backside who keeps making work for me." Hesperian 02:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be quite the effort to keep this, but we're not in the schadenfreude business, we're an encyclopedia. Our policies state quite clearly that we must source all material in biographies, that we should not create biographies based on a single negative or positive event in the person's life, and that we should not engage in original research or synthesis. All of these are true in this case unfortunately. This article should not exist in its present form, because there is no reliable way to tie one Slattery to another, no matter how much we try. And thus we're left with a BLP1E. If the subject has been effective in covering up his footprints then that's the way it is. There is no single reliable source that says "Andrew Slattery, who used to be a poet and got caught plagiarizing material, is now a screenwriter" If we can't stop edit warring over the separation of the two, then the article should be deleted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there is no difficulty showing that Andrew Slattery is both a screenwriter and poet - when the plagiarism allegations arose, the media described him as both, and the media from 2007 has been describing him as both from his early coverage. So I don't see a problem on that score. However, I'm not currently sure that his work as a screenwriter and poet is enough to get him over the line, so BLP1E might apply. The awards did not seem to me to be very significant, but others may view them differently. - Bilby (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beg pardon FreeRangeFrog, but your "there is no reliable way to tie one Slattery to another" comment is framing a false narrative. The article makes no attempt to tie two people together. The article does not assert your strawman "Andrew Slattery, who used to be a poet and got caught plagiarizing material, is now a screenwriter". The article has no need to make out such a case. The article is about one person, and reports what reliable sources have said about that one person. Reliable sources say that the subject of our article is "[a] poet and screenwriter from Newcastle", so we've reported that. Hesperian 05:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there is now the need to unequivocally tie these two people together, that's the burden that the person writing to OTRS imposes on us. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But to the (hypothetical) extent that simply saying that a person is a screenwriter can be construed as tying together two putative people, we can be unequivocal about it: we have reliable sources that explicitly say that the person is a screenwriter. Surely "the burden that the person writing to OTRS imposes on us" cannot be so heavy that it cannot be carried by WP:RS? Abstracting away from this specific case, are you saying that an OTRS complaint can trump reliable sources? That all a person has to do is whinge to OTRS, and we'll proceed as if the complainant is right and our reliable sources are wrong?

Furthermore, if you're going to admit an OTRS complaint as "evidence", then why not admit all the other evidence. Really:

	Evidence that poet and screenwriter are the same person	Evidence that poet and screenwriter are different people
Evidence restricted to reliable sources	Reliable sources state so unequivocably	Nil
All evidence taken into account	Reliable sources state so unequivocably; deleted revisions of Andrew Slattery show long history of self-promotion as such; numerous social media and other self-promotion websites, including the person's webpage, previously stated so, and were all changed post-scandal. This can still be demonstrated using the Wayback Machine, and Hesperian has screenshots.	Someone says so on OTRS

What's your evidentiary standard? Pick a row, then do the math. Hesperian 08:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that we're conflating two problems. One, the article about the poet is a BLP1E on any good day and should be deleted. Second, whether or not he's the same person as the screenwriter is clearly a BLP issue where we are trying to forcibly join the two together and potentially causing harm to one of them. I'd say we shouldn't have either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, I'm providing evidence that there is only one person, and you simply repeat that there might be two. I guess that's the end of that. No point debating a brick wall. Hesperian 01:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult one. I agree with Hesperian and Bilby that the man is both a poet and a screenwriter, but I also agree with Bilby and the nominator that BLP1E may apply, and the awards are not sufficiently notable. Without the one event of plagarism, there is nothing that makes this man notable enough for an article, so it should be deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur with the above comments, whichever way you slice it, this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete As I said before - As WP:BLPSOURCES says "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" - as far as I can see the only real source shown is the Susan Wyndham column, which could be easily be described as tabloid journalism. In my view the article is not that great and is one small piece of news of a very minor non-notable person and I easily agree that this is WP:BLP1E Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per BLP1E, the available sources are incredibly marginal relative to the connection and I don't see that there's anything particularly encyclopedic about this person's life. Bare desire to carry around a biography that does nothing but taunt someone for allegations of plagiarism is insufficient to support the existence of an article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that source do not clearly indicate the poet is a screen writer shows that neither is notable, whether or not they are the same person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that sources do not clearly indicate the poet is a screen writer. Hesperian 01:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no hassle with deleting the article, but the sources state clearly that he is a poet and a screenwriter. - Bilby (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing he did as a screenwriter is enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. - Bilby (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2014 (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.