Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Terrana (author)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil Terrana (author)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

nn author of vanity press book Articles for deletion/Postal Service (novel) ccwaters (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom, Boleyn3 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't Delete The author wrote on many occasions for the HAWK Magazine, a publication of the US Army during the Vietnam War. He has been published in the LA Times and The Virginian Pilot. This is his debut novel, so it's not receiving national attention yet, but it is being well received locally and distribution is starting in local post offices. Due to the connections to Charles Bukowski's 1971 book, it is believed this will reach national attention very soon. I would ask that deletion of this article and Articles for deletion/Postal Service (novel) be delayed for a few weeks. Dpt2000 (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. While I'm sympathetic to the idea that the novel was just published (October 9, just a month ago), I believe we have it backward, here. We write the article when the subject is notable, not in anticipation of the subject becoming notable. If the novel takes off, picks up a professional publisher, and gets some media attention, then an article might be in order - but we're not there yet, so this article is premature. Additional sources about the author could change that, but right now the notability claims are tied entirely to the new novel, which doesn't carry. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Borderline speedy, because I do not consider having published a vanity-press book as a plausible claim to notability.   DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.