Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Orullian

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mycoltbug (talk | contribs) at 18:00, 2 March 2011 (→‎Peter Orullian). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Peter Orullian

Peter Orullian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable: author who has 110 Google hits when social networks, WP, blogs/forum and his publishers are excluded from the search [1]] Sitush (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One published novel, some short stories... Probably a little short of the bar for notability. I don't see a lot out there beyond normal publicity from the publisher and the author's own promotion. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References cited do not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete writer with, so far, not a single notable work. Perhaps someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Somebody who a managed to get their first novel published which is quite an accomplishment, but I can find no coverage about him or his work in reliable sources to establish notability at this time. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually have been working on trying to get sources. If you can tell me what type of sources you require I will gladly put up those sources. I'm a first time wiki creator. Peter didn't create this page, I did of my own choice. I've seen many other authors that have similiar pages put up. I've added more details in about his music career which do include a band that has it's own wikipage. --Mycoltbug (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - What is needed is to demonstrate that he has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources such as magazines, newspapers, etc. that would satisfy either the general inclusion criteria, or the ones specific to authors. Feel free to post the sources here in this discussion for consideration. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There are a couple different ones that I could put up. If you look at the music section there are some new references about his musical endeavors. Also here are a few other references for his work as an author. [2],[3],See the opening statements by the editor at TOR the publishing house about Peter [4]--Mycoltbug (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I have taken the liberty of removing the <ref> tags so that the URLS show properly. -- Whpq (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - What we need is independent coverage about Peter Orullian. The search results from Good Reads is not usable as a reference, and press releases and such from his publisher are not independent sources. For example, something like a New York Times book review would count as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ReplyThere aren't any of that yet availible since the book which is his most notable accomplishment to date won't be released until 12 April. Once that's up I can link the details from that. Here is a review that publsishers weekly put up [5]There are several bloggers out there that are independent of the publisher that prove that he is a good author. I can give you those links also. Here is one concerning him being an acomomplshed singer with a band [6]--Mycoltbug (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - This may simply be a case of it being too soon for an article. This simply isn;t the sources to support an article yet. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply How is my page any different from this page? [7] There isn't much difference at all nor any better proof of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycoltbug (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Because anybody can create an article on wikipedia, the existence of other articles is not a good reason for keeping this article. Each needs to be reviewed on their own merits. I've not reviewed the other article. Perhaps it should also be deleted. Regardless, to have this article kept, reliable sources are needed. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • By your own rules put on the wiki site you way it must be notable and verifiable. Publishers weekly is the international news website of book publishing and bookselling including business news, reviews, bestseller lists, etc. It is a verifiable source for proof that he is an actual author and that is book is worth while. Which would increase his notability. [8] "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" He does have multiple different sources that I have now included for his music and writing that are all independent of him. Therefore by that guideline he is notable. --Mycoltbug (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Orullian&oldid=416767674"