Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Mangels


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Bejinhan   talks   04:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy Mangels

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced self-bio for non-notable author. Some (unsourced) claims about some works, but not enough to establish notability. Too low profile to be covered by reliable sources. damiens.rf 14:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, weakly. He is the author of a substantial number of books and graphic novels.  There is also some quality, non-trivial coverage in this New York Times story about gay parties where people dress as superheroes. (No matter how kinky you think you are, could be worse.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I somehow missed the super-transvestite thing... maybe my church's webproxy filtering. --damiens.rf 17:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dressing up as superheroes is cosplay, not cross-dressing. Don't assume they're transvestites just because they're gay. -22:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is lacking in third-party sources, but shows no evidence of being self-written, and the subject's notability can be confirmed (well enough for the purposes of AfD) by his bio at Prism Comics and this interview on the official Star Trek site. The article does need to be tagged for improvement to include proper citations, but does not warrant deletion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it for rescue. --damiens.rf 17:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable as proven above. Joe Chill (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and please read WP:BEFORE. He is a bestselling writer, you able to easily confirm that.  I just added a link to a news article that said that.  He gets coverage for being a founding moderator of Gays in Comics panel.  Click on the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD to find ample coverage about that.   D r e a m Focus  21:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I support this - the article should have been tagged for notability or proposed for deletion before being nominated, to allow editors the chance to improve it without rushing. Diego (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dream Focus. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing evidence of satisfying the general notability guideline, despite the claims above. The single source actually in the article is to a press release style announcement in an on-line magazine. "For more information, visit www.comic-con.org."  There are multiple hits in google news, but all appear to be related to panels, none that are actually about this author?  These don't amount to significant coverage in reliable sources.  There is this interview, but it's a single piece in a niche publication. (He looks awesome though!) Can we bring some actual sources to the discussion, please, instead of just asserting them? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And the bio doesn't go to notability, as it'd fall under a common-sense interpretation of a self-published source/press release. It's directly associated with sales. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm not seeing "significant coverage" -- merely quite a bit of passing mention (generally in the context of Comic Con panels) and a couple of paragraphs (on his views, not him) in the NYT piece. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any "significant coverage" either. Has a bio at Prism Comics? Head on over and click "Submit your profile!" and you can have one, too. Just like Twolfing: "Hey, nice to meet you,I'm Thomas Wolfing from Jordan: a freelance comic writer/artist. ... I hope that I go pro one day, so here I am. XD" Listing yourself in this type of directory is not significant coverage in a independent source, so this does not help meet WP:GNG. Was quoted in one paragraph of a New York Times article? That's not significant coverage. We don't write an encyclopedia article every time a newspaper reporter quotes somebody. We need multiple examples of in depth coverage of this topic for this to meet WP:GNG, we need far better than that to start writing a Biographies of living persons -- we can't just write that somebody is a participant in various gay sex subcultures with no sources whatsoever. Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The mere existence of a bio at Prism Comics was not presented as proof of notability, but as a source of information which someone of good faith could read, and use as a starting point for confirming the list of credits. That other guy's Prism bio demonstrates that he's not notable; but Mangels' points at evidence that he is, and that properly documenting that fact in the article would be time better spent than trying to delete it. -Jason A. Quest (talk)
 * Further comment: I believe the subject's documented self-identification as "a participant in various gay sex subcultures" should be adequate to cover any Biographies of living persons liability. :) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither of these 2 comments address the need for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the topic. Rangoondispenser (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It does address the spurious accusation of BLP issues, however. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. A notable and noteworthy author.Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment addressing some of the above concerns. An author who works in a niche genre and an activist who works for niche causes is going to be covered almost exclusively in "niche" publications (such as the official Star Trek web site).  (The New York Times Book Review doesn't include a lot of sci-fi paperbacks.)  The reason he gets that superficial coverage you see in mainstream media is because of his notability within those fields (e.g. If you're a NYT reporter doing an article about gay superhero parties, you call "that gay superheroes guy" in Oregon for quotes).  If he were only the moderator of an long-running series of convention panels, or if he were only the writer of a couple dozen franchise novels and a pile of comics, or if he were only the organizer of several fund-raising events, or if he were only the editor of culturally important comics anthology, he might arguably be non-notable, but when you stack all of that up (and document that all of these things are true, as has now been done), it adds up to demonstrated notability. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But still, we can't reliably write bios for people not covered by reliable sources. He belongs the niches. --damiens.rf 13:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Niche" publications can be reliable sources. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Demonstrated Notability is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We do not have that here. Instead we have trivial coverage on Wikipedia mirrors, self-published sources, misleading press release claims and what look to be pretty big factual errors. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the cited sources are Wikipedia mirrors or sourced from Wikipedia. The only self-published source is there to satisfy the BLP issue you raised regarding Mangels' self-identity.  Please document your accusations about "misleading claims" and "factual errors"; are you alleging that the sources are incorrect or that they have been incorrectly cited? (This is starting to sound more like a criticism of the content of the article rather than whether it should exist.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are wrong on every count here, and exhausting patience. The very first reference currently in the article contains material directly lifted from Wikipedia. Non-independent sources used in this article include the topic's personal website and "Official Press Release". Misleading press release claims include "He edited the award-winning anthology Gay Comix from 1991-1998" which doesn't say what award (major? minor?) or whether the anthology won the award while Mangels edited it, and is attributed to a website that never mentions "Gay Comix" or any award. Another, which looks like a factual error, is whether "Iron Man: Beneath The Armor" was ever a USA Today best seller; if it was, use USA Today as a source and provide the date and position on their list. The problem here is that you have rather carelessly thrown together every trivial mention in an unreliable and/or non-independent source you could find, when in fact meeting the Notability standard requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and Biographies of living persons requires that you not be so careless. If no one can provide evidence of significant coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then, no, an article on this topic should not exist. That is the established consensus and accepted standard here on Wikipedia. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Amazon citation was put there to confirm that: yes, the subject is a professional novelist. The bibliographic information Amazon provides is entirely independent of Wikipedia. (The inclusion of some text from WP does not "poison" it as a source for other facts.)  See WP:ABOUTSELF for a guide to when it is appropriate to cite the subject's own bio.  (It is in fact preferable for statements about self-identification, as here.)  I apologize that I apparently pasted a citation meant for elsewhere in the article on the fact that he edited Gay Comix/Gay Comics; I have replaced that citation with a bibliographic one, and left that cite on the fact which it correctly supports (third-party recognition as an influential individual).  I cannot confirm the unnamed award referred to by an earlier editor, so I have removed that phrase.  The identification of the Iron Man book as a bestseller appears to be from the unclear phrasing used in the source (loosely: "author of bestselling Xs and Y", but only the Xs were on the bestseller list); also fixed.  Contrary to your accusation, I am trying in good faith to improve this article to the standard that Wikipedia requires.  I am doing so because I am confident that with some time and the further help of access to offline sources, the subject's notability can be established.  It's unfortunate that these issues were not first discussed on Talk for the article, and that it went directly to AfD, escalating it unnecessarily. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No substantial coverage in multiple sources. Smattering of mentions in primary & self-published sources does not count toward notability. Completely fails WP:AUTHOR. Maybe he can be included when he further develops his body of work, but not now. – Lionel (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is significant reliable coverage, and several other independent sources describe the man. Diego (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. Blogs and press releases cannot be counted toward notability. And trivial mentions, i.e. a couple sentences, are not substantial coverage. – Lionel (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a commonly stated Wikipedia myth, but truth is that the blog format says nothing against the sources reliability; it's the reviewing process that counts, and AfterElton has an editorial board. And the amount of text is not what makes a mention trivial, but the quantity of information given. A trivial mention is one that doesn't convey direct information, but this manages to include in one paragraph the verifiable facts that 1) Mr. Andy Mangels participated in a ComicCon, 2) has published at Amazing Heroes and 3) a direct quote from him. Diego (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. When we see "Official Press Release" at the top of a source, that means it is to be taken as a self-published source, so it is immediately useless for Notability purposes because it is not independent. When a source only has a few sentences, and it's attributed to an organization where the topic sits on the advisory board, then it's neither significant (it's not in depth) nor is it totally independent. Lionel is correct that all of these "a couple sentences" mentions are not significant coverage. "Andy Mangels is a ComicCon panelist who has published stories in Amazing Heroes" is not in depth information. It is as plainly trivial as "Three Blind Mice is a jazz band that Bill Clinton played saxophone in while in high school."  The "Three Blind Mice" standard of what is obviously trivial coverage has been the consensus view and accepted standard since at least November 2006, so we'll either need to go change that long-standing consensus or find some in depth sources here. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're raising the bar for notability requirements; in depth coverage is not required for notability, only sources that "address the subject directly in detail", that is, enough to get facts that can be included in the article. I agree that it would be better to have more solid sources (and that the press release is not independent), but I and at least four other editors find the available references (Star Trek interview, NY Times, After Elton, and USA Today best selling list) to establish notability according to WP:GNG with enough facts for a short article. NY Times is above the "Three Blind Mice" test - it containts at least three specific facts directly about the guy, and the interview and the professional blog do provide more detailed coverage with more than "a couple sentences". I don't think this discussion will achieve consensus to delete the article. Diego (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep (though weak) - he has lots of published books, including a few non-fiction, he is a renowned features producer (on numerous high-profile DVD collections) and at the forefront of comic-book and animation commentary (on a similar number of high-profile DVD collections). This review of Time-Life's The Real Ghostbusters: The Complete Collection sort of sums it up, "Time Life has engaged the services of Special Features producers Andy Mangels and Reed Kaplan. Mangels is a best-selling novelist, author of Animation on DVD: The Ultimate Guide, and the producer whom TVShowsonDVD.com called "legendary."". If someone has that many books published, how can they not be notable? I think that, putting ones personal tastes aside, someone this renowned and published in the comic-book field is certainy notable enough. Unfortunately many of the refs are from internet magazine sites, so are being viewed as non-reliable, I cannot believe that we would that obtuse as a community. Many of those websites that he is featured in, quoted on, or even interviewed on, are surely giving a general air of notability - just because they are not the NYT or similar does not mean that they are not reliable. Here I think a WP:IAR may be in order, there is not really a notability established in each individual field, but for someone who falls slightly short of notability under each of the creative aspects of "Writer" + "Producer" + "Commentator" = notable. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG analysis, roughly paralleling Diego's analysis in the reply at 16:36. There's some precedent backing for AfterElton as a RS, the NYT is, the USA best seller is, and IMHO the official ST page is. Now, of those, AE clearly provides in-depth coverage, I think one can argue whether the NYT is but in my experience that piece is above how "in-depth" is usually judged here. To any extent that it is lacking (and I don't think it is, I think a NYT mention is pretty relevant), the best-seller list/ST interview provide an indication of notability.  OTOH, I agree with Rangoondispenser that the ComicBookResources piece appears to be a press release.  Many of the other sources here presented seem weak or problematic to me, but I think there's enough. --joe deckertalk to me 15:56, 12 August 2011 (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.