Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Mamatas

Nick Mamatas

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

A lack of reliable third part sources necessary for WP:BLP. Also, publications don't seem notable and awards are regional, not enough to distinguish person as notable. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of third party coverage confirming notability. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but agree this needs tighter focus, more information on national and international nominations and awards (2011 Hugo nomination as editor, frex), more 3rdP sourcing. Confusing a less-than-optimal article with the actual RL notability of the subject seems like an error, though. (Disclaimer: I also work in the US publishing industry.) IceCreamEmpress (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely. The Stoker, the Hugo and World Fantasy are hardly regional awards and alone would indicate "notable" works. The article could use some reorganization, but should absolutely not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edonald (talk • contribs) 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the awards are hardly regional or insignificant (and nominations for them makes the publications de facto notable). The article does need to be cleaned up. --Yendi (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The World Fantasy Award and the Hugo Award are hardly "regional" awards. They are the highest honors in the entire field of fantasy and science fiction, and even if you contend that they only apply to English works (which they don't by their own rules, although admittedly in practice mostly only English works get considered), that's still hardly "regional." Kevin Standlee (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The World Fantasy Award is not regional. It's right in the name! JoeNotCharles (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The awards may in fact be world-wide, but his work was nominated and did not win. Seep WP:BIO. In order to clear notability he would also need third party coverage to establish notability, as noted above. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:BIO states WRT to notability and awards: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Mamatas has been nominated for the Bram Stoker award four times in four different categories (Long Fiction, First Novel, Short Fiction, Anthology) as noted in the entry. He qualifies as notable via WP:BIO—four certainly counts as "several," Incidentally, the fourth nomination is current—the Bram Stoker award winners for 2010 will be announced in June, so he may still win. Further, he now has, as of just over a week ago, a second Hugo nomination in a second category. Third party coverage already linked to in the entry includes a national NPR program ("On the Media") and a review essay by Laird Barron. This suggests that the call for deletion has little to do with notability guidelines and much to do with the occasional tendency by Wikipedia users to put up a lot of entries for deletion. There's really no debate to be had—the entry meets notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the matter completely, as entire debate serves only to inflate article subject's already-massive ego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.238.143 (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons for nominating this article are spurious, at best. What is with the ever-present cabal of Wikipedians who get all moist over deleting articles? Does Jim Wales send out an extra fruitcake at Christmas to people who nominate the most articles for a VfD? --Phrost (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the WP:BIO text you quotes, you glossed over "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." There are authors nominated for national awards dozens of times who are not notable. There are authors who are never nominated for any awards that are. The reasons for nominating this article are not spurious and it is worth noting the article has been previously tagged for regarding WP:COI. The bottom line, as the editor who suggested a delete noted, is a lack of reliable thrid party sources and the lack of the subject clearning notability.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Meeting one or more WP:BIO criterion does not guarantee inclusion, but it's rather silly to first argue that the awards are regional, and then when that is refuted argue that mere nominations don't count, and when that is refuted change your argument a third time without changing your opinion. Clearly, the reasons you put up for deletion originally simply aren't true-the awards are not regional, the publications are notable, and there are reliable third-party notes, including NPR. (It's also worth noting that the NPR material does not show Mamatas in a good light, which suggests that COI isn't a major issue with this entry either.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.54.226 (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:AUTHOR explains that "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." Mamatas's creative work has been widely reviewed in Publishers Weekly, the Los Angeles Times, The Believer, and other periodicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.54.226 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per usual with too enthusiastic deletists, the nominator confuses an imperfect with an unnecessary article. Nick Manatas is an internationally published author with some standing in horror and science fiction, both for his own writing as well as his editorial work, as a five minute google search would find out. Deleting an article on a perhaps minor writer/editor does not make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia; improving it does. --Martin Wisse (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Several of the "keep"ers are SPA's who have solely or largely edited this article. And, after all this discussion, no-one has yet come up with independent third party sources confirming notability--the article is still mainly sourced to blogs and Mamatas' own autobiographical writing. An NPR interview deals with his early experience writing other people's term papers for hire, which does not make him notable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Jonathanwallace, so your argument above boils down to "people who are knowledgeable about Mr. Mamatas' notability are suspect because they are knowledgeable." Well done there. As for independent third party sources of information, Locus magazine, the trade magazine of the science fiction and fantasy publishing industry, keeps an extensive list of award nominees for the major awards in the genre, and you may find an extensive list of Mr. Mamatas' nominations within the genre, including his Hugo and Stoker nods.Scalzi (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The NPR appearance is actually about Mamatas's personal essay on his experience writing term papers for hire; surely publishing an essay that leads to national media appearances to discuss the topic is a sign of notability. Further, which "keep"ers specifically have solely or largely edited the article? (And if the edits improve the article by adding sources from third-party publications, what of it?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Despite Jonathanwallace's concern that despite "all this discussion" (one day of seven) leading to nothing, the entry is easy to update. Reviews from the Village Voice, Los Angeles Times' online edition, Publishers Weekly, and the Internet Review of Science Fiction have all been added, and it didn't even take the five minutes of Googling Martin Wisse suggested the deleters try. More like two minutes. Given WP:AUTHOR above, Mamatas clears notability by having multiple publications that have been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."