Deletion of Andrew Slattery

Comment: doesn't seem to meet  and has provoked a sock flood
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Consistent with , "the person has received a notable award" (AWGIE Awards) http://www.awg.com.au/artman/publish/article_450.shtml
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: That's ''not'' what  is there for.  You'll note that regarding ''additional'' notability criteria such as , 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE||WP:CREATIVE)

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  (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  is there for
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: Please see #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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)