Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Orullian (2nd nomination)

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 NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Orullian[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 4. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lack of reliable, independent, and verifiable sources to indicate notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article might have been created a bit prematurely, but there's a reasonable amount of online sourcing (albeit less than optimal) and several strong indicators of notability: a book tour sponsored by a major publisher [1], nontrivial reviews of prior work [2], and selection by the Science Fiction Book Club [3] (which doesn't so much contribute to notability as demonstrate it exists; after spotchecking, it seems that everybody they publish has a Wikipedia article). Well past the WP:CRYSTAL stage, better to keep and build up as the book hits than delete and restart within weeks. We've got articles on TV episodes that won't air until about the time the book is out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He does not meet the notability criteria right now. He may in the future, so the future is when the article should be created. An alternative is to userfy the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the guy has a bunch of books published --MoonLichen (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - He does not have a bunch of books published. He has one published, and one set to release. Having a bunch of books published does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is listed as a bestselling author by the New York Times. He has been interviewed by a number of websites and blogs as an author and separately as a singer. He easily meets General Notability. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do you have a citation for being a best selling author? I'd be rather surprised as he has only one released book, and it wasn't a best seller as far as I can determine. And being interviwed in blogs doesn't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response. We need to be careful about mechanically applying standards like "blog coverage doesn't establish notability" in fields like f/sf, which have a long and recognized tradition of "amateur" publishing by professional writers and recognized commentators. Coverage in John Scalzi's blog, for example, (Scalzi is president of SFWA) probably would contribute to notability. More generally, while blog coverage can't normally be used to source biographical details, especially in BLPs, it can be used to demonstrate peer recognition/reputation under WP:CREATIVE, which quite clearly would demonstrate notability. We have to be careful, of course, about walled gardens, indiscriminate backpatting, and purely promotional comments about friends, but that's routine editorial judgment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:38, 19 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.