Deletion of Andrew Slattery (poet) (2nd nomination)

Comment: I concur with the above comments, whichever way you slice it, this is a case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: As I said before - As  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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPSOURCES||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)