Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Mamatas


 * 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 Sumsum2010 · T · C  03:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nick Mamatas

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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)
 * Comment Putting your comment at the top is a poor substitute for making an argument with substance, Zonebridge. Also, WP:NPA.  IceCreamEmpress (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC) 03:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely delete. This page is nothing more than an ego massage for a no talent hack.  Nomination for most awards is a popularity contest (as Mr. Mamatas is so wont to point out at every turn).  Mr. Mamatas is also very quick to point out that awards mean nothing in the overall scheme of things.  That being said; why should criteria that he, himself, does not believe in be used as a basis for this page.  There are more deserving authors, those that have won actual awards and whose talents exceed Mr. Mamatas's.  These authors also do not feel the need to have a Wiki page, letting their work speak for them.  It does seem suspect to this user that his reviews appear in venues where he has either worked or has friends who work(ed) there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonebridge (talk contribs) 17:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)  — Zonebridge (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete, lack of third party coverage confirming notability. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep The World Fantasy Award is not regional. It's right in the name! JoeNotCharles (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)  — 67.164.93.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)  — 76.125.238.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)  — 12.74.54.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep Author handily meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO, while reasons given for deletion are based on a misreading of WP:BIO and ignorance of what the Hugo, Stoker, etc. are, plus side orders of goalpost shifting and well poisoning. Tasty! Ergative rlt (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC) How about this interview over at Dark Horse Comics where Mamatas and Brian Keene are interviewed? Hmmm http://www.darkhorse.com/Blog/260/damned-interviews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.224.95 (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Comment Note that Scalzi is arguably capable of showing that Mamatas is notable all by his lonesome. Perhaps we will see a repeat of the spurious NIcoll AfDs from a couple of years back, and have even more SFF professionals show up. Ergative rlt (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Comment. Despite Jonathanwallace's concern that despite "all this discussion" (one day of seven) is 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."
 * Comment. The intent of this AFD is to see if there is enough merit to keep this article or not. It really doesn't matter if more "keepers"--SPAs-- coincidentally create anon accounts and vote to keep it if they don't provide any merit to their arguments. So far, as Jonathan Wallace noted, no one has. The NPR as well as the first two sources deal directly with this guy writing term papers for others, not his fiction. And the LA times "review" is a dead link. So far there is one publisher's weekly review of a book that likely wouldn't make notability here on WP to begin with, a lot of links to his personal web site, blogs and other "references" such as the internet review of science fiction that are not what WP considers reliable. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The AfD nom stated that the subject was non-notable, not that the article did not sufficiently establish notability through third-party sources. As for the suggestion that there is inappropriate ownership on the "keep" side, that seems unsupported. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wallace was already asked to list which "keepers" are SPAs who solely or largely edited this entry. Now I ask you the same question. From my eye, Phrost, KevinStandlee, Martin Wisse, Scalzi, Yendi, etc. all have multiple interests, and the others who popped in haven't ever edited the entry. (I've edited the entry. I also never registered a "keep"—I've only ever offered comments.) You're just engaging in well-poisoning. It's also rather bizarre to claim that the NPR/paper writing sourcing is somehow invalid because it's not about Mamatas's fiction. Mamatas writes non-fiction, including his widely linked to, reported on, and reprinted essay on his experiences as a so-called "term paper artist." One of the categories this entry is filed under is "American essayists." Writing an essay that leads to media scrutiny is almost a textbook definition of notability. The LA Times doesn't have an exhaustive archive, but the link offered is hardly dead—it's a copy of the review from the reviewer—and Mamatas's work (both fiction and non-fiction) are widely reviewed and discussed in trade publications like PW, and in book pages for the Village Voice, American Book Review, Locus, etc. If trade publication reviews and daily paper reviews from major markets and alternative weekly reviews don't count as "periodical reviews" then virtually no author not named Snooki clears notability. It's also worth noting that there are in fact ZERO links to his "personal website"—there is one to a blog entry about getting a job, a job for which he has been nominated for the Hugo Award (link to that also provided). It's clear what happened: you glanced at the entry and put it up for deletion, and now this is a matter of ego for you to have it deleted, WP guidelines and the simple facts be damned.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are at least three SPA's posting on either side of this issue: 67.164.93.88, 76.125.238.143 and Zonebridge. I reiterate that a couple of mentions of Mamatas doing other people's homework don't make him notable. The article has been improved since the AFD began. Closing editor should concentrate on the following: Whether the Village Voice and Publisher's Weekly mentions which have been added are sufficient to establish notability. Contrary to the editor above, the latimes link is in fact broken. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. More goal-shifting: before the SPAs were "keepers" and the ones solely or largely editing the piece. (See your comment 3:50, 3 May 2011). Now they're just "posting on either side of this issue." Also, Zonebridge's first comment was from this morning; you made the SPA claim a day before he or she appeared. (76.125.238.143, like Zonebridge, is clearly just trolling anyway). AfDs discussions are supposed to be rational arguments about the merits of the piece, its notability, etc. The SPA stuff is a sideshow and a derail; not one ID you mentioned voted "keep." That's the exact opposite of your initial claim. The latimes link is not broken; there was a typo in it, now fixed. Finally, the term paper "mentions" are a) a published essay on the experience of writing term papers for money and b) a media appearance based on the essay. Writing essays that lead to NPR appearances about the topic of the essay are notable. If David Sedaris appears on a radio show and the topic of one of his essays--say, his old job at Macy's--is discussed, is that somehow not notable because lots of people work at Macy's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.54.226 (talk)
 * Keep - I don't understand the mania for deletion amongst some of you lot. More than half the time, it's "I don't like the article" or "I don't like the subject." Nick Manatas is a globally-published author and editor at an award-winning imprint. C'mon, what. Solarbird (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep His personality and whether commenters like his work is irrelevant. What is relevant are the multiple award nominations for major industry awards. The original deletion comment is misleading by saying these awards are 'regional'. The article does need some cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. Polenth (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Four Bram Stoker Award nominations, all in different categories, and the nomination for Hugo Award for Best Professional Editor (Long form) are quite enough to satisfy clause 1 of ANYBIO, even if one discounts the Clarkesworld Hugo Award and World Fantasy Award nominations as being for the magazine rather than for Mamatas as co-editor. If these awards are not significant, then I can only look forward to a purge of science fiction, fantasy and horror articles comparable to the Massacre of Verden. PWilkinson (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The closing editor will indeed focus on whether or not the mention in Village Voice, PW and LA times is sufficient, as Wallace says. The reviews are quite brief. The references for the awards help the article, but don't solve the question of notability. As the man from 12.71.54.226 comments, yes, the discussions are supposed to be about the merits of the piece. That being said, I don't know how accusing people of "goal'shifting" and well-poisoning" helps if this is the approach he wants. Moreover, SPAs are not a side show, particularly when accounts are created for only one purpose. Say, one that is created within a day of the AfD nomination. Honestly, I've never read this author, never heard of him until I read this article, and with all these fans (or friends) here I would expect some of these people who live on internet to dig up some good third party sources since the nomination establishing notabilitiy. But none has been had so far. We've got time, though, so I still post this in good faith. Lastly, if David Sedaris appears on a radio show, as he did for the essay you mentioned, it is notable. It has nothing to do with the fact as you say "lot's of people work at Macy's". It is because the radio show became a such a hit (discussed, I think, in the washington times)that it was not only included in his collection (published, it is worth noting, by Little, Brown and Company) it was also turned into a play (which was subsequently reviewed by reliable sources). That is an example of notability.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Little, Brown and Company is an imprint of Hachette, just the way Tor Books (which published Mamatas's Haunted Legends, the latest Stoker nominee) is an imprint of MacMillan. If "notability" means "publishing with a major press" as you seem to imply, then Mamatas has done that. There are a lot of small presses these days that are just vanity presses or lulu.com in disguise, but the ones Mamatas has published with—Night Shade Books, Prime Books, Soft Skull Press/Counterpoint, PM Press, Apex Publications, University of California—are all legitimate independent presses that sell tens of thousands of copies of their titles and who get their books into major bookstores. Notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Interestingly enough Jimsteele, WP's definition of notability doesn't depend on whether or not you personally have heard of the subject of an entry. Wikipedia would be a barren place if that definition was used. Nor does it depend on whether or not you decided that the Hugos, World Fantasy Awards, etc. are "regional" awards based on...well, based on nothing at all. If you do not wish to see people accused of shifting the goalposts or poisoning the well, you should intervene when you see someone shifting the goalposts or poisoning the well. It's rather obvious that the claim that "keepers" are largely SPAs is not in evidence—you've been asked twice to identify the several SPAs that have voted to keep, and you have repeatedly refused to do so. (Wallace gave it a whirl; he came up with two trolls who voted to delete, and one person who hasn't made an account and thus didn't vote either way.) So retract the claim. It's that simple. When your claims are not correct, you must retract the claims and then reconsider your opinion. That is a major part of rational discussion. You also don't seem to know very much about reviews—most daily papers and trade journals do brief reviews and often review several books in a single column. (PW, a trade publication, does capsule reviews). Most books, however, are not reviewed at all. That an author has multiple books reviewed by multiple sources is notable. That the reviews aren't long enough based on your arbitrary reckoning hardly matters. Finally, the Sedaris radio show was notable even before it was collected in a book. Same too with Mamatas's "Term Paper Artist" essay, which was widely discussed when it was published, has been reprinted in textbooks, and also discussed on national radio. The repeated claim that the NPR source is just about term papers or homework, or that public discussion essays cannot count toward determining whether or not an essayist is notable because the essayist also writes fiction is preposterous. The delete claims for this entry involve either these bad arguments about SPAs or are from trolls.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.54.226 (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Seriously? How many major genre award nominations and other credits does it take? Stoker, Stoker, International Horror Guild, Hugo, Locus, Village Voice, Publisher's Weekly, NPR, Viz. This should never have been AfD'd; and, having been so, should be snowball-closed into "Keep" posthaste. This is the sort of AfD that people point at and laugh, or at least shake their heads ruefully. This is why we can't have nice things. -- Ray Radlein (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep* Many nominations for international awards, some wins, NPR piece about an essay he wrote. I don't understand why this is even up for discussion. Amuchmoreexotic (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment from nominator: This isn't about votes, guys. Repeat, it is great you guys are big fans of the author, that you have mentioned the awards are not regional and he has credits. I get it. Sorry WP can't include everybody you think should be included in an encyclopedia (for the record people you seem to generalize as "deletionist" include people who work hard to eliminate articles that don't belong, they nominate them, hopefully don't delete them right away, and there's typically some fruitful discussion around waht to do). I know some of you think it's all due to big egos or perhaps minions of Jimbo. Perhaps these paranoid people should get out more, spend less time on the internet. And perhaps that is why there are blogs. There, you can post whatever you like, and no one will debate what you think is notable or not. But posting things like this is what I consider campaigning, perhaps canvassing and definately not appropriate to have a link directly to this discussion. Mr. Wisse I can only surmise how many of the keepers here were brought by such methods. It really doesn't help the process. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The determination of whether or not someone should be included depends on the notability requirements (among other things). People are not randomly voting to keep or trying to stuff a virtual ballot box—they are pointing out that Mamatas meets the notability requirements thanks his national and international award nominations (some "keepers" seem really only to care that the awards are recognized as important), thanks his real publishing and editorial credits, and thanks to major market reviews and national media discussions of that work. Your arguments of favor in deletion have been refuted, and all you are left with are explicitly evidence-free claims of campaigning and canvassing. You apparently want people to be silent and let the closing administrator make a decision, and that's a good idea. You should be silent as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Closing administrator please note: some of the messages at the top of this discussion are out of order. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the article needs to be reorganized to make his notability clearer, his numerous nominations for the Bram Stoker Award and the Hugo Award (the most prestigious award in the genre) suggest that he is notable. May I suggest that the discussion here become less personal, lose the attempts to categorize people as "keepers" or "deletionists", and focus instead on the merits of the subject. As far as I can tell, only three of the numerous !votes in this discussion are SPAs (one "delete", two "keep"s), and I have tagged them as such. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Let's note that it has largely been the original nominator who made this personal, by dismissing any objection out of hand and believing all these who objected are msiguided fans of Mamatas only coming to Wikipedia to vote in this debate. In fact the overwhelming majority of objectors have been, like me, on Wikipedia for years. The difference is that many of these people also know the context in which Mamatas writes and are hence able to judge his importance better. I'm sure the original nominator meant for the best when he proposed this article for deletion, but his conduct during the discussion is less than ideal. --Martin Wisse (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I find myself highly disappointed with the attitude and multiple flagrant breaches of WP:AGF on the part of the original nominator. Contrary to his baseless assertions, no one suggested I come weigh in on this AfD (though if someone had, I would have gladly come to help prevent yet another embarrassing deletionist mistake); and, far from being a fan of Mr. Mamatas, I have never even read so much as one word of his work. What I have done, however, is heard of him, because I am reasonably knowledgeable about significant individuals in his areas of fiction; though not so knowledgeable, it may be noted, as Martin Wisse, Kevin Standlee, or John freakin Scalzi are. Those three guys really are the equivalent of pulling Marshall McLuhan out from behind the pillar; and disagreeing with their opinions about notability in the SF/Fantasy/Horror fields is the sort of mistake that no diligent editor would ever dare repeat (also, as Martin has pointed out, we are not all exactly inexperienced at this whole "Wikipedia" thing -- both he and I have been here much longer than the nominator, and I, at least, have more article namespace edits as well). What this appears to have boiled down to by now is one person, the original nominator, seeming dead-set on holding on to his "delete" in the face of overwhelming evidence of sufficient notability being documented by several actual experts in the field, complete with relevant cites at hand. Books from major publishers. Multiple nominations for major international awards. Articles, reviews, and interviews in major magazines and on the radio; all documented and linked. Only WP:AGF is keeping me from speculating on what sort of perverse agenda would declare that this overwhelming flood of evidence, any individual element of which would be singly sufficient to establish notabilty, is somehow incapable of proving the point in this specific case. -- --Ray Radlein (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If I could repeat my request - let's stop the personalities and get back to discussing whether the article should be kept or not. As your mothers used to say, "I don't care who started it, just stop it!" (It's mother's day, so listen to your mother.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 8 May 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.