Deletion of Peter Orullian

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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: References cited do not appear to satisfy 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR)