Talk:Louis A. Mongello

Conflict of interest?
It's worth noting that numerous Wikipedia articles have been spammed with links to Mongello's Disney trivia website over the past several years and a vanity article about an older podcast was deleted. Familiarity with WP:COI would be a good idea. &mdash;Whoville (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call this spam. It's information sourced (poorly) from the book.  Rather than an external link, it should be properly source with ref and cite tags.  While the IP address does resolve to an ISP near Mongello's home and keeping an eye out for WP:COI is always a good idea, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion given how fanatical Disney devotees can be.  Mongellos book is one of the few with this kind of information.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not calling this article spam but it reads like a very flattering tribute. Are "facts" like these really encyclopedic?
 * Beginning as a child and continuing into adulthood, Lou was fascinated by Disney World and has visited over 80 times since then.
 * Lou currently lives with his wife, daughter (who was born on Mickey Mouse's 75th birthday and who graces the cover of Volume II)
 * My original comment above was meant to raise a red flag. Mongello has a habit of relentless self-promotion and disregard for Wikipedia policies on spam and conflicts of interest. I know from past edits that some of the spammy, COI contributions came from User:Lmongello a user name like LMongello (or something similar) . And because this article is about a prominent Disney fan, I'm hoping it doesn't turn into a cult-of-personality battleground like the one for Al Lutz. I don't think every Disney fan who writes a book or hosts a podcast needs a Wikipedia article. &#151;Whoville (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've remade my earlier edits, and included in the history summary exactly why each edit was made. Hopefully that will help keep the article from becoming marked for deletion due to WP:COI, WP:POV, and WP:NOTABLE (amonst other vanity-type pages here). SpikeJones (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The material you mention above appears to be from the bio on Mongello's publisher's website . The trivia bits (born on Mickey Mouse's birthday, visited over 80 times), did need to go though as I cant find sources for it.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "He is considered an expert..." in the opening paragraph needs to be clarified. In essence, either the article exists because he is the book author, or the article exists because he's a disney expert.  If it's the former, then this sentence must be removed as the existence of the books is enough to imply this info.  If its the latter, then the article is more likely to be flagged for deletion, as there are plenty of people who are also considered experts in that field as well, and merely being an expert in Disney info does not qualify for inclusion in WP. SpikeJones (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All references to the Podcast Awards need to be verified by a non-biased third-party writer in order to qualify the awards as being something more than a vanity plug. SpikeJones (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Marital status and inclusion of children is not encyclopedic. It's something you'd find in the scam-a-rific "Who's Who" books. SpikeJones (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The bio section should probably go as well, as it does nothing to support why the article exists. He's the author of disney books; why do we care that he's a lawyer or works in medical imaging? How does that support the article? SpikeJones (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On last comment for Rtphokie -- you've spent a lot of time adding Primarysources, fancruft, and suggesting article for deletion due to lack of interest outside their primary area. A casual question - since you are familiar with these policies -- is why are you not applying the same ones to this article?  Not doing so - when we've raised many of the same issues you're pointing out elsewhere - screams of a WP:COI situation. SpikeJones (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, too, Rtphokie. You're not Mongello so help us understand your motives for creating this article and your rapid, vigorous defense of it. Outside of Disney fandom, Mongello is, by any reasonable standard, non-notable. I think we might all agree that Wikipedia is filled with far too much fancruft and poorly written, poorly sourced articles when it comes to Disney. Adding Lou Mongello to the encyclopedia wouldn't have been on my to-do list. &#151;Whoville (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm, not Mongello, I've never met the guy. I dont listen to his podcast (though I've heard him on some others).  I've read one of his books.  Everytime I see an article about disney fandom, this guy is mentioned and is always labeled an expert.  That makes him notable.  There are sufficient references in there to meet WP:BIO and the article is written similarly (and much shorter) to other author bios.  You dont have to be a devotee to update an article.  The only thing I'm a fan of is well cited articles. Why the desire to gut the article with a chainsaw?  If you think it's non notable, put it up for AFD.  --Rtphokie (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody is questioning your dedication to having well-cited articles; my earlier point is that you are tagging other articles as needing valid 3rd-party references, yet aren't adding any non-biased ones here; you are tagging other articles as being fancruft, yet aren't applying the same tag here; you are tagging other articles as being non-notable outside of specific areas, yet not applying the same tag here. In all three cases, this article qualifies to have the same tags applied (and in defense of Whoville and myself, we have been good-faith assisting to help bring this article into line with WP policy rather than simply flagging it for deletion as others may have done quickly. But if we might as well flag it with all those tags and put it up for AFD debate instead of helping you make the article better, that's fine by me. I don't believe it qualifies as notable here anyway and was only trying to help you. SpikeJones (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the "Notability" flag from the top of the article, and my explanation follows. Mongello clearly meets the following definition included as part of Wikipedia's notability guidelines: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work."

Mongello is a published book author, and his books have received multiple independent reviews. He is also the author and editor of a podcast which is published online and has received independent reviews as well as independent awards. He cleanly and clearly meets the criteria. (He may also meet some of the other criteria, e.g. being an opinion leader and/or being the subject of independent published works, but while there is room for debate as to those criteria, he clearly meets the criteria for published authors.)

Whether Mongello is "famous" outside of the realm of Disney commentary and coverage is irrelevant. Wikipedia's guidelines do not require notability in multiple fields or subjects. In fact, they specifically allow for notability within just one field. Furthermore, Wikipedia's guidelines clearly distinguish between "fame" and "notability." He may or may not qualify as "famous" (which is, to some extent, a subjective term), but he objectively qualifies as "notable" in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Many of the other points raised in this discussion merit consideration, and I have left the other flags in (the article does need more sources cited, for example), but there is no justification for the notability flag. Panfan71 (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)