Deletion of Dustin Warburton (2nd nomination)

Comment: IMHO the subject could even pass the letter of  but passing a SNG is not a guarantee that a subject should be included in our encyclopedia. Here we have zero chance of passing GNG and even  is met in a very borderline way. Not enough in my view
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear that a subject is notable if it meets the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines.  You don't have to meet both.  He meets .  A book is Wikipedia notable based on coverage it receives, and he did play a role in creating somethings that would be considered notable by Wikipedia standards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: I was unaware of the "co-creator" loophole in the  notability guidelines, and I don't agree with it. It apparently provides that even the most obscure ghostwriter will become "notable" if they happen to hook up with a famous person - and thus co-produce something which receives coverage because of the famous person's involvement. Looks like  to me. A guideline is a guideline and presumably was based on consensus, so I am striking my "delete" !vote above; however, I can't bring myself to !vote "keep" for a subject I still regard as non-notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:INHERITED)

Comment: not a notable author, and no reliable sources discuss Warburton, himself, in any depth.  I'm very concerned that keeping this would set a precedent by which one can attempt to claim notability through association with a celebrity, an argument that is traditionally rejected (see 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)