Deletion of Nick Mamatas

Comment: In the  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 . 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:COI)

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  above, Mamatas clears notability by having multiple publications that have been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment:  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 —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 Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/67.164.93.88|67.164.93.88
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Four Bram Stoker Award nominations, all in different categories, and the nomination for Hugo Award for Best Professional Editor#Long form|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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: The awards may in fact be world-wide, but his work was nominated and did not win. Seep . In order to clear notability he would also need third party coverage to establish notability, as noted above
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)