Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Heavenheld

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Heavenheld

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

Creator removed PROD template without comment or improvement. PROD was based on: Fails notability for WP:AUTHOR. Although the subject has written and published two plays, searches have failed to reveal any WP:RS reliable sources that clearly assert the notability and importance of this author/playwright. Kudpung (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, the PROD was removed with a comment left on the talk page. It stated: "Removed deletion request as subject satisfies WP:AUTHOR criterion 2: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. As far as I'm aware, subject is the only Australian playwright writing in this (neoclassical) style, and one of only a handful in the world." -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite the assertion of notability in on the article talk page when removing the PROD, there are no reliable sources writing about this person. In particular, nobody has taken note of him being the only Aus playwright writing in this style in the form of articles or biogaphies written about him in reliable sources. His collection of plays appears to be self-published based on the Publisher being Heavenheld Publishing. I can find no coverage about this collection of plays either. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no coverage in gnews [1]. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2010 (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.