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. Please read WP:BIO for notability guidelines of people. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 13:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. I don't know how 8 short stories, 1 book that is coming out and touring with multiple bands is not notable. --Mycoltbug (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Tor appear to be his publishers & therefore not independent; the band you refer to which has a WP article is,by your own admission, one which he was guest vocalist for on one occasion (and, for all we know, one song). No-one is denying that he is a published author but Publishers Weekly alone as an independent source proves little regarding notability - publishers' lists and potted plot summaries are ten-a-penny but not meaningful because they exist primarily for marketing. I am starting to think that you do have a conflict of interest here: you have contributed to no other article than this one and seem to be absolutely adamant in the stance you are taking on it despite a consensus from more experienced editors - it is, to me, a classic sign of a COI editor. I know you have said that you are not but I'm finding WP:AGF a little hard to stretch at the moment. Apologies for this. I also think that this discussion would be better on the article talk page, which is linked to from here anyway. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment kinda funny how it says debates over the deletion should be on this page right on the warning. But moved my discussion to the talk page as requested. --Mycoltbug (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - you are right, my fault. I think some of the detail you are bringing up is a bit more than is usual to find in an article/page such as this, but nonetheless you are right. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • From article talk page - given my error above, here is a cut and paste of Mycoltbug's cmt on the talk page:

          If you are going to take this page down then that's your choice. I am independent of Peter, TOR, his agent, etc. I just happen to be a fan that enjoys his writing and find him to be of notable need of an article like this. If you disagree that's fine, your choice since you are the person in charge and I'm mearly am trying to use Wikipedia to it's intended use, which to my understanding is an Enclyclopedia of information for people seeking information about a subject that is note worthy. I've seen multiple other authors with as many resources and verifiable sources on your site, I've found that to be a huge boost for information (as I'm sure other users have also.) So if you are going to take this down please tell me how to flag an article for deletion and I'll go flag all the other authors for deletion that I know I have looked at that aren't "notable" by your definition. Otherwise get off your high horse and drop the deletion flag. Which i'm sure by me posting this i'm in breach of [[9]] but I don't care. You are the one who is accusing me of being a liar and threatening to delete my hard work from your site. I may not be a pro at this but I'm trying to learn it and was going to start working/editing other articles but maybe I'll let this place continue to be full of misinformation because of people like you Shitush. --Mycoltbug (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Reply I find your claim of "one occasion" as incorrect. If you read the sources properly he was with them for the entire tour not just a single song. Furthermore, I'm providing arguements against everything you have said and no one can really provide refuttable eviedence on the contrary to what my sources say. As the guideline states "This notability guideline for biographies[2] is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice," You have established practices of having and using sources such as review sites, publishers, and other locations such as that throughout wikipedia. At the user said above "Publishers Weekly alone as an independent source proves little regarding notability - publishers' lists and potted plot summaries are ten-a-penny but not meaningful because they exist primarily for marketing." He is correct they exist for marketing purposes to help said authors gain notoriety, that does not mean they can be denied as a source. I have included both primary and secondary sources WP:BIO says "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." that has been the subject of an independent book is the key to this argument. It is an independent book. Therefore it should not be deleted. Also the fact that you are using google search as criteria to diminish is notabilty is against wiki policy. See [10] --Mycoltbug (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am withdrawing from this discussion, which is becoming personal because an editor seems to think that I am running the show. To do otherwise would be to inflame the present situation. Let's just see what happens on the consensus for this AfD. Agreed? - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have made substantial edits to the sources as requested and also added more sections about his music endevors. I ask to have some new fresh opinions look at the page based off the gounds I put in my dispute above. This article does not meet the grounds for the request for deletion. If you don't want to dispute my case above that is your call. I just felt that there was little to no good faith gestured to the article and needed to stand up for my hardwork. --Mycoltbug (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2011 (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.