Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson (2nd nomination)

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Wikipedia deletion discussions are not votes, but attempts at establishing whether there is a consensus among editors to delete an article in the light of our applicable inclusion rules, notably WP:GNG and in this case WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. As such, while the numbers of people advocating for keeping or deleting the article do matter, the strength of their arguments in light of established Wikipedia policies and guidelines matters more. Our rules require a rough consensus for deletion; absent such consensus, the article is kept. I conclude that this is the case here.

In assessing consensus I disregard the obviously disruptive comments, as well as the voluminous comments made either by or about Williamson, his canvassed fans and/or their sockpuppets, and their respective conduct. Instead, I focus on the opinions that analyze the article in terms of our inclusion rules. While "delete" has a clear majority in the first half of the discussion, these "delete" opinions tend to be cursory and merely assert non-notability, rather than discuss the article's sources. Accordingly, and also because they couldn't take into account the sources added later, I give these "delete" opinions less weight. From 22 July onwards, the article was considerably edited and improved with sources. In the second half of the discussion, editors disagree about whether the newly-found sources meet our notability criteria. In the assessment of sources, editors can in good faith disagree about the value of sources individually or in aggregate. I can't resolve this disagreement by fiat. Accordingly, I must conclude that we have no consensus either to keep or delete the article. I do give weight to the professional opinion of the author and Wikipedian John Scalzi, who, while clearly no friend of Williamson's, makes a persuasive case that we have routinely accepted articles about authors of comparable apparent notability. While this opinion, as well as other thoughtful "keep" and "delete" opinions, can't establish a consensus that clearly does not exist, they weigh against attempting to find a consensus for deletion here.

I note that the subject of this article, Michael Z. Williamson, has edited Wikipedia as Mzmadmike. He has been banned from Wikipedia as a result of a community discussion that concluded that Williamson has disrupted Wikipedia through his edits as a Wikipedia user and through comments on social media, which (according to the community discussion) have included canvassing, legal threats (admin-only diff) and harassment of Wikipedians. This has no bearing on the outcome of this deletion discussion, because having an article is not an indication of merit (as a person, author or otherwise), but only of what Wikipedia calls "notability", i.e., being covered in some detail by reliable sources. But it bears mentioning here as a context of what may be necessary future administrative actions to protect the article and Wikipedia from further disruption.

Given that Williamson himself has requested deletion, I need to determine whether WP:BIODEL applies. According to that policy, "biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete". I find that the first criterium of this policy does not apply here. Williamson is a published author who has publicly promoted himself as such; accordingly, he is a public figure. His view on the existence on the article about him is therefore not determinative.

Consequently, the article is kept for now. It can be renominated for deletion after an appropriate time. Any new deletion discussion should probably be semi-protected from the beginning, as this one has now been, to prevent the recurrence of canvassing and sockpuppetry. Sandstein 10:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Z. Williamson

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Michael Z. Williamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination; this was tagged for speedy deletion and deleted (not by me), but at least three people have challenged the speedy deletion so I've restored it for discussion. Procedural nomination so I abstain on whether it should be deleted.  ‑ Iridescent 06:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Why is this being even discussed? Again?!? This article had been up for 15 years. And the same exact matter was already considered 11 years ago and soundly rejected. If he was notable 11 years ago, he's notable now and for ever after, 'till Wikipedia's servers are taken offline or the universe comes to an end, whichever comes first... Seriously, we have better things to do than re-adjudicate the same matter over and over. What has happened in those 11 years that somehow warrant going through that again? Arugia (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Williamson has been writing and selling books for a decade and a half, without about one per year published on average. That is more than enough for a Wikipedia entry.Saintonge235 (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have a hard time seeing a best-selling (Forged in Blood, Angeleyes), award winning (Soft Casualty) currently active (Freehold: Resistance being released in December) science fiction author (13+ full length works, with many more short stories) published by one of the big traditional publishing houses (Baen Books) as being not relevant. Thank you for undeleting the article.

    Update. Apparently this was hashed out eleven years ago too. Ibson.writes (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC) — Ibson.writes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Strong Keep Haven't we already been down this road before and settled this debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson? The author's notoriety has increased over time, with more books published, more speaking engagements, more fans. DBalling (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Given that Mr. Williamson has continued to be a prolific author in the 11 years since the last AfD, including personally authored works, participation in others anthologies, and leading his own anthologies, essentially all from major publishing sources, I'm left at a loss why this article (a) would even be considered for AfD, and (b) would be speedy deleted. It leaves the impression of a single editor with personal animus, who deleted an article entirely due to personal dislike of the subject. At which point I'm left wondering why were aren't looking at an AfD-like process for said editor to be stripped of authority. If you can't discharge the duties in an proper and impartial manner, you need to find a new hobby.Update This is not my first account. Lost control of my prior, dates-back-to 2002, account after major system failure + domain sale. Sue me. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC) — Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep As others have pointed out how is a bestselling author not notable especially one who has multiple series printed by a major publisher. Paulwharton (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He's got multiple series with multiple professional publishing houses, several of which are bestsellers, and all of which are profitable. Other bestselling authors write stories for the anthologies set in his series. He's notable as an author by any reasonable metric. Ssmock (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC) — Ssmock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Noting that based on the Facebook page on which the author canvassed, all five of the preceding commenters are involved directly with the WP:CANVAS attempt. In particular, Dballing claims to have been the one who contacted Mr. Williamson and takes credit for having the page restored, and all of the others are either named directly on the canvassing page or posting here under a name similar to or identical to posters in the WP:CANVAS organized sockpuppet thread. As noted by other editors as well, they tend to be cyclically just involved with popping up to defend certain authors as sockpuppets, see [1] [2] [3] similar to current post(s) above. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the references in the article, none of which are significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC) Update The article has improved (thanks to those who worked on that), and fail per WP:BASIC is no longer obvious. I'm still at "Delete" per the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE below. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cited works are some autobiographical material published in Tour of Duty, an interview with him published in 2009, and biographical pages on his own websites. Are you suggesting Mr Williamson and his published biography are inherently unreliable? Where do you propose one get biographical material about an author, if not directly from the author himself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibson.writes (talk • contribs) 08:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Misunderstand me correctly. To establish notability in the WP-meaning, you have to have sources that are at the same time significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So, nothing written by the subject or his employer counts in this context (though has some use per WP:ABOUTSELF if WP:BASIC is satisfied).

        If biographical material about an author is only available in sources from the author, it is a strong hint that WP:NOTABILITY does not exist for the topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

        • You're using the wrong criteria. This was originally posted as an A7 Significance/Speedy Delete. By trying to assert notability, you're raising the bar artificially. So.. go back to the Significance standard.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't consider the subject's deletion request since it was clearly done in bad faith, specially considering the context surrounding it. Just a heads up. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The closer will weight it as they think they should. Btw, are you saying he made the comment because he wanted the article kept? That's some heavy psychology. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems likely that there is some sort of WP:Canvassing or other going on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no idea as to his notability at this point, but the sources in the article don't seem to be reinforcing that at all and claims such as "best seller" are not being cited inline. At the minimum an improvement to references is required by those claiming he is notable enough to warrant a "Strong Keep" (and those external links look questionable). I see almost nothing independent provided, in fact most sources are self referential - even down to his nationality. I am not seeing significant coverage of any real note from any reliable sources. Additionally, the prior RFC may also have been incorrect, its existence isn't a reflection on whether or not it actually came to the right conclusion originally. If no additional sources are provided, this comment should be taken as a clear "Delete" based upon lack of sources / notability. Koncorde (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Okay, now I am going to add something. User Ibson.writes is an SPA, however, more suspiciously on 13th March 2019 at 04:22 an edit to Sri Lanka Army was made. At 04:19 and 04:20 two edits were made by editor Mzmadmike to Sri Lanka Navy (one two). Their edits to this page are also at the same time that Mzmadmike was making spurious accusations against a user, and complaining at the helpdesk and subsequent. At a bare minimum this suggests a case of personal involvement, but is also like a sock puppet. Koncorde (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I raise all this because the last AFD appears to have been populated with an SPA, a confirmed Sock, plus other low edit users with particular obsessions. Koncorde (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you read below - the sockpuppets in question are basically admitted by the author, who names individuals that match to the sockpuppet names and specifically three people he tags to ask them to edit / note that they edit the page regularly on his behalf. What we have here is a WP:OWN issue for a self-promotion/vanity page by the subject of the page directing sockpuppets and meatpuppets. User:Dballing has also admitted now to being a part of this group, being specifically the one who emailed Williamson and touched off the off-wiki WP:CANVAS post along with the deliberate off-wiki harassment against the deleting admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is advising someone that their WP page has been deleted now some sort of policy offense? Is noticing that given the previous AfD there shouldn't have been a quick-delete somehow wrong, and that it -- at the very least -- merited an AfD of its own? This seems dangerously close to WP:Casting_aspersions DBalling (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • DBalling was within his rights to notify him. I view him as a good faith editor although clearly inexperienced. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As other have stated and proven, this award winning author is indeed noteable datagod (talk) 🍁 06:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Mad Mike, as his fans know him, is a multiple bestselling author who's written more than a few published works in the mainstream SF press. This CfD sounds nakedly political to me, trying to get rid of an entry for a notably conservative/libertarian author. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the first time this has been bandied around, and each time there has been no evidence? Two AFD's in over a decade is far from some kind of "political" push. If his notability can be asserted through reliable sources, then do so? The article should have been prodded for improvement long before now, so it's unsurprising that it has been AfD'd. Koncorde (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd say that the comment from 73.76.220.8 at 15:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC) is blatantly, nakedly political. Other accsations of racism and the like abound in this comment thread from the delete advocates. Sure seems political to me. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take a look at the bibliography. If 13 books published by Baen and 3 by Avon - nobody's idea of a bouique publisher! - aren't enough to establish notability for an author, then just what is? -- Jay Maynard (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:BASIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • For someone who complains about casting aspersions, that was awfully condescending. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Apologies, it wasn't meant to be. The article, in it's current form, doesn't show WP:BASIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Being published, by a major or minor publisher, does not confer significance or notability by itself. It must be supported. For comparison, David Weber is an author I know nothing about other than some books my wife owns from her teen years, and that they are (per the blurb on the back): "New York Times best-selling". John Ringo the same. Both are stablemates of Baen. They have both won awards, beyond being nominated, for instance both have won the DeepSouthCon's Phoenix Award (science fiction). Now whether that even confers notability is again a different argument, but at least there is a thing to latch onto. Koncorde (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • A single book, or even two or three, you could definitely make that argument. However, 16 books from two different professional publishers, including two of which that made the Locus Bestseller list - which would entitle him to claim the title "Bestselling author" - another two of which are anthologies in one of his universes, which other authors contributed to, and a multitude of short fiction, including contributions to other people's anthologies, is a completely different kettle of fish. Especially the anthologies in his Freehold universe - having other authors contribute to your universe is not common. Someone does not need to be a household name to be notable, especially in more specific markets. Ssmock (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • He doesn't make the claim (self published claims are largely invalid). Someone else must attribute it. It could even be his publisher for all we care, but we need sources to reference and verify. A primary source alone is not good enough. What you think confers notability does not align with the notability guidelines or the reasons why this has been raised. The Locus best seller list might make that novel notable, but it still doesn't automatically confer notability to the author (similarly with shared world's). Koncorde (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I don't disagree that there seems to be something political (or maybe just fan-ish) about this page, your comment IMO seems close to WP:Casting aspersions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This AfD is clearly politically motivated, you can easily find Wiki articles about left wing sf authors who have written far fewer books, with far smaller sales totals, whose pages are not being targeted for deletion, for instance, N._K._Jemisin who is both notably leftist and anti-white bigoted, has won awards solely on her racial/gender identity for books that have sold a few hundred copies (not counting the free copies distributed to WorldCon members for awards consideration), and had to depend on Patreon donations to support her writing habit due to such poor sales volumes, has no AfD on her page. Perhaps wiki-snipers should start targeting wiki pages of authors who claim to be professional writers but cannot actually support themselves on paltry book sales? 65.96.53.130 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC) — 65.96.53.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • I realize this comment is coming late and is off-topic for the AfD, but I can't resist correcting at least a couple of the obvious lies posted above. First, in reality, Jemisin has sold over a million books so far, as confirmed by her publisher [4]. Second, Jemisin is currently making more than $60,000 per year from her patreon page alone -- hardly an income to be sneered at [5]. And third, even two years after publication of the last book in her trilogy, she is still listed in Amazon author sales rankings at #56 overall in the Fantasy category [6]. Can any of Williamson's rabid supporters come up with any remotely comparable achievements?Amazondoc (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we can assume your support for keeping is purely political too and nothing to do with the writers notability? There is no indication that there are any politics at play, for starters I am from the UK and actually do not even know who Mr Williamson is. As an impartial observer his article is poor, and his responses look entirely like a case of unwarranted self importance built around comparing himself with people who may or may not have sold more books than him. However simple book sales are not a metric. Notability is conferred by secondary and tertiary sources, discussing and referencing the subject matter. A book made into a film for instance does not guarantee that the book is notable. But if someone discusses the differences and themes of the two, or compares and contrasts, then this may be notable if the person is seen of being of some repute as a movie, media or literary critic. The threshold for inclusion is actually surprisingly low, but we need supporting evidence not claims to verify this other it will be AfD'd again at some point. Koncorde (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obvious illegal WP:CANVASsed edit: [7] "Mike Lorrey My contribution to the AfD page: Strong Keep: This AfD is clearly politically motivated, you can easily find Wiki articles about left wing sf authors who have written far fewer books, with far smaller sales totals, whose pages are not being targeted for deletion, for instance, N._K._Jemisin who is both notably leftist and anti-white bigoted, has won awards solely on her racial/gender identity for books that have sold a few hundred copies (not counting the free copies distributed to WorldCon members for awards consideration), and had to depend on Patreon donations to support her writing habit due to such poor sales volumes, has no AfD on her page. Perhaps wiki-snipers should start targeting wiki pages of authors who claim to be professional writers but cannot actually support themselves on paltry book sales? 65.96.53.130 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)"
      • And his followup [8]
"Mike Lorrey I'd suggest a new section to really trigger the snowflakes, talking about his extensive gun/knife/sword collection, and more about his military experience."
"Ross Michael Phillips With pictures"
"Ross Michael Phillips That'll really get them frothing at the mouth"
"Mike Lorrey with him wearing some of his more outrageous t-shirts for sale"
  • Delete as Not Notable. A search reveals no usable reliable sources - there are only bookshops, forums, Facebook and personal blogs, and not many of those actually. This situation must be uncomfortable for fans or other supporters of Williamson, and the deletion process here may look obscure, but the procedure is standard and well-documented, and this case appears extremely clear-cut to an editor uninvolved until this moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep this page. Mr. Williamson is a well known, prolific writer in the science fiction community. There was absolutely no reason to delete his page before or consider deletion now. Fly46 (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page - Politically Motivated request. One needs only to type his name into Amazon to know what he does, and why he is notable. Anyone saying he's not notable can't use a search engine or is, perhaps, not telling the full truth. His politics are libertarian (for lack of a more accurate term), and there are people who want to quash that message. Amazon https://www.amazon.com/s?k=michael+z+williamson&crid=33XJI1JAZUYVP&sprefix=michael+z+will%2Caps%2C196&ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_14 IMDB https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2439067/ TheMeanEngineer (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC) — TheMeanEngineer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Guys, the criteria for deletion are nothing to do with political motivation, and it would be a personal attack to suggest that any editor had such motivation: I guarantee that I don't have any such thing, as it happens, and I have no idea why Williamson might be an object of politics good or bad. The key criterion is simply "Notability", which Wikipedia defines as whether "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I looked for such sources and to my surprise couldn't find any. I would have expected to see newspaper and other reviews of some of his books, for instance, but they simply weren't there. That's all. One other thing: this isn't a voting contest, either; the closing admin will look at the reasoned arguments on both sides, and will make a decision on the quality of the arguments; they don't count votes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anybody know where the canvassing is going on? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably a mailing list. Although the Sad Puppies (and the Rabid puppies]] seem inactive, I'd be surprised if they didn't have mailing lists still. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to those voting keep - how does he meet WP:AUTHOR? There are 4 criteria there and we need reliable sources for just one of them to show that he's notable. If you can, I'll vote Keep despite the issues with the puppies, both sad and rabid. @Ssmock, Rumplestiltskin1992, Dballing, Ibson.writes, Fly46, and TheMeanEngineer: can you give us guideline based reasons? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:By its own terms, not meeting WP:AUTHOR is not sufficient grounds to claim non-notability. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Doug Weller: The Grainne/Freehold Universe which Williamson has created is strong enough and popular enough that other authors haves participated in anthology works based in that universe. That would seem to meet criteria 3 (his role in creating that original collective body of work is sole-authorship, with the anthology work being independent and notable for the number and caliber of authors who have participated in it, for example Larry_Correia). Further, I think one could make the argument that the same Freehold universe is probably one of the more coherent examples of libertarian science-fiction, having been able to explore the topic over several volumes, and while not perhaps a "new concept" but definitely one of the strongest examples of that concept to-date (criteria 2). DBalling (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Doug Weller: Be advised what you have here is a fleet of sockpuppets/meatpuppets from WP:CANVAS. Links and evidence below. It took a while to write it all down.
        • If this is regarding my reply to @Doug Weller:, I'd direct you to timestamps. I've been working on the undeletion since before Williamson even got involved (I'm the one who told him about it) and would direct your attention to WP:Casting aspersions. DBalling (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Isn't this basically admitting participating in WP:OWN behavior, given that the WP:CANVAS started as a stated result of someone contacting Williamson, who then promptly called the deleting admin a "pha66otte"? @DBalling: I think you have some massive explaining to do, first for triggering the harassment, second for not coming clean in your initial reply here.
              • I don't feel that I have any "explaining" to do. If I know someone (anyone) who is the subject of a WP page, and I notice it's been deleted, it's perfectly natural to tell that person that it's happened. After reading the notes about the deletion, I realized it should have been an AfD and not a quick delete, so I requested the undeletion to move to this process we're engaged in now. I am responsible for my actions, and not those of others, and my actions are completely above-board. I've not "hidden" anything. I believe it's mentioned in this page now a few times the timeline of "I noticed it, I told Williamson, I saw that it probably should have been AfD and requested the undelete." If other folks are documented to have violated policies as a result of Williamson complaining on his Facebook page about the article's deletion, that's something to take up with them, not me. I've been approaching this entire process by adhering to the WP rules as best as I know how, and I take offense at anonymous accusations to the contrary. DBalling (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @DBalling: I'm sure that's right As for your Freehold argument, maybe if you can give us reliable sources making the argument. On another issue you need to email me from my talk page right now showing me that you didn't dox an editor. You should know what I mean. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Doug Weller: Ding. You've got mail. We can continue that thread there. DBalling (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, that was a sentence that could be read two ways but I'm convinced my interpretation, though reasonable, was wrong. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE and Reply to @Roxy the dog:: The author put out a call to his "fans" at [9] and then referred to the deleting admin as "this pha66otte" ([10]) to encourage his toxic followers to engage in harassment.
    1. Then he directed his fans to try to re-create it: [11]
    2. Then he called for several specific meatpuppets/sockpuppets to come here [12] "People who have contributed include Jamie Ibson, Desiree Arceneaux,", "Oh, and Jason Cordova".
    3. Then the following was posted [13] :
    "Jamie Ibson I'll see what I can do
    Michael Z Williamson
    Michael Z Williamson If archive. org has a copy, it should be easy to put a new page up. I've asked the administrators to review the issue. It's blatant sabotage if he couldn't find anything "credibly important" on the page.
    Jamie Ibson
    Jamie Ibson Michael Z Williamson Everywhere that I'm seeing on the wiki already has notes requesting a reversal of the deletion by yourself or another user."
    1. One of his "fans" posted the words [14] "Another night at FabricTramps house!" along with a video appearing to be a nazi scene from some movie.
    2. Then Williamson started ranting about how he wasn't able to add an absolutely insane "counter argument" [15] to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law, followed with [16] "Thus proving that socialists are hypocritical, delusional shitheads who can even lie to themselves."
    3. A particular set of sockpuppeters, it appears: [17]
    "Sorry I can't help much. I lost my editing credentials on wikipedia after I forcibly restored about 60 odd pages discussing massacres by communists a few years back."
    "I got banned on my original account there for writing an article about how the Gun Control Act of 68 is a nearly word for word translation of the Nazi National Weapons Law, based on a copy that Senator Dodd obtained while he was a Nuremberg prosecutor"
    "To clarify, I used to be one of the site moderators. Think they call them administrators now. But basically, I was at one point, of originally maybe 50 users total who even *had* the ability to ban users. One of the ways that Jimmy Wales screwed things up on wikipedia was by *vastly* increasing the number of people able to do that and adding various additional permissions layers. That was, sadly, a concession made when the first infestation of liberals made it onto the site.
    I managed to skirt around the liberal personality cult Wales built around himself for years, but restoring factually accurate articles on acts of mass murder by communists after they were maliciously deleted was apparently what got me on their radar."
    " I "edited " that he is an author and bladesmith known to me. We shall see if it makes a difference!"
    1. Also from same, probably not a real name but matching a sockpuppet in the WP:CANVASsed comments above [18] "S Leallen Smock Wikipedia has never been reliable. I mostly use it for grabbing sources. It IS amusing how full of themselves some of the people on there are."
    2. The author is even now directing his "fans" on HOW to try to WP:CANVASsed edit this page [19], "Ok, DO NOT mention politics. You may note reasons why you think I'm relevant--awards won, nominated for, bestseller status, reviews in papers or magazines, etc https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Michael_Z._Williamson_(2nd..."
    3. Attempting organized editing or paid editing from another angle [20] "Michael Z Williamson you could contact your current publisher and have the PR department update it thoroughly with all references and all relevant material. They should have someone or a company that does this for them."
  • Comment. Note the number of names matching sockpuppets, and the fact that the vast majority of the "article" looks just copy/pasted from other locations. The previous discussion has a warning about WP:CANVAS material due to the author putting a rather nasty note up on his blog for his rather toxic fans. Editor "Ibson.Writes" appears to be a single-purpose account for the purpose of inserting promotional material on the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ibson.writes); same for "SSmock". Several IP editors are obvious sockpuppets or meatpuppets, or not IPs but obvious sleeper sockpuppets (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rumplestiltskin1992). The WP:CANVASsed group's words above in commentary show some serious issues with bigotry and a belief that Wikipedia is a place not for encyclopedic content but to promote someone's business venture (for instance, the IP above who callously accuses N.K. Jemisin of being "both notably leftist and anti-white bigoted" and of having "won awards solely on her racial/gender identity".
    • Unfortunately I have to add another one of these: "Derek Balling Michael Z Williamson what am I chopped liver? I got the undelete done 🙂" [21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm the one who advised Williamson of the article deletion. I submitted the un-deletion request prior to Williamson's post. I messaged Williamson to tell him of the deletion, saw the discussion on the editor's page that it shouldn't have been quick-deleted because of the prior AfD, and submitted the undeletion request based on that. That would be the opposite of canvassing. DBalling (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now if you'll excuse me... after wading through the cesspit of bigotry, hatred, foul mouths, and rampant racism that is his tiny "fan base", I need a good shower. And maybe reverse peristalsis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the personal attack. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • BowWow. Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are also posting screenshots of a Wikipedia admin's user page and posting comments like "What in the actual soyboy hipster?" and "macOS, NPR, gluten free diet, we all see where this is going and why they deleted your page."
      • Oh and the author also decided to harass the deleting admin personally on his talk page, after calling him a "pha66otte" on Facebook. [22], specific diff link [23]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now, now, the editor in question there DOES direct folks to discuss his deletions on his talk page, and there was already a discussion going on about it. It's not "harassment" to respond to that deletion in the manner shown in the cited edit. DBalling (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the specific point of Ok, DO NOT mention politics. You may note reasons why you think I'm relevant--awards won, nominated for, bestseller status, reviews in papers or magazines, etc, I see no problem with that. If he genuinely is important in his field and there are reliable sources to demonstrate that (although I'm shown as the nominator for deletion that's purely procedural, as I'm the one who undid the speedy deletion when it was contested and brought it here to get a consensus; I haven't followed SF since around the time Heinlein died and have no idea who the current major players are and whether this guy is one of them) then that's exactly the kind of thing we want people arguing for it to be kept to point out. We shouldn't be penalizing him for asking his supporters to follow our policies and not be disruptive. ‑ Iridescent 15:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that this was only put up to cover his own ass a good while AFTER referring to the deleting admin as "this pha66otte" and encouraging his small but toxic fanbase to engage in attacks on wikipedia. And that they are now on to doxxing behavior [24] "David Todd Who is graberg?", [25] "Jonathan Markum Best I can Tell a Wiki editor from Sweden.."
        • Also noting that the author is the sort of "person" who likes to use phrases such as "and some clinical mouth breathing retard*, like Occasional-Cortex, the meat puppet with tits from incel district NY Shitty", or "Of a million soiphags", or other stuff that I'm sure even mangled like he likes to mangle his spellings wouldn't pass the edit filters. So when he posts something like that AFTER directing his hate squad directly to a Wikipedia admin's page and calling said admin a "pha66otte", I think we all know which one he meant and which was just dishonestly posted to cover his disgusting ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since whoever posted this failed to sign their entry, I don't know who I'm responding to. But yes, I suppose I am a single-purpose account. I haven't edited or contributed much at all to wikipedia, that is true. I would dispute that my purpose was to "insert promotional material on the page" though. If wikipedia strives for accuracy, then if you review what I added, you'll see it wasn't promotional. I updated that Mike had gotten divorced, remarried, and had a third child, and I updated the list of his published works. Now that this shmozzle has blown up in everyone's faces, I've added a new link to an article by Publishers Weekly where they referenced Angeleyes selling 100K+ copies, which is a _lot_ when the paperback hadn't even been released yet. In other words, I'm trying to meet the "Citations Needed" demands that editors were requesting in the first place before things got out of hand. As to the accusations that I'm a sock puppet (because we both made minor edits to a page on the Sri Lankan military a couple hours apart), we were discussing that military because Sri Lanka, Indonesia and the Philippines are highly relevant to the Freehold universe at large. Then I noticed a spelling error and fixed it (see "striving for accuracy, above"). Ibson.writes (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • What you've just done is inserted your comment in the middle of a very long comment. It wasn't originally posted with all the asterisks. [26] Thosee were added probably mistakenly by User:Uncle G later [27].Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ibson, I would suggest you read Sockpuppet (Internet) to see why you qualify. You don't have to be the same person. With specific reference to the article in question, you did not declare your vested interest / friendship with the subject which would make you have a WP:CONFLICT of interests, and nor did many of the the original contributers to the last AfD, but it is clear that due to the edit history that some degree of coordination exists between the two accounts. This wouldn't be cause for concern when just editing (for example) the Sri Lankan army / navy articles, however it helps to identify accounts that are fundamentally tied to each other that will be used to influence and sway consensus and discussions (the edits to which are not a couple of hours apart, they are within 3 minutes of each other, just as your responses to this article and Williamsons responses to the Helpdesk are also within minutes). That you are in fact a friend of Williamson and contributing to threads on his Facebook account where he is coordinating responses to this only goes to prove the point that I was correct in my assertion. Koncorde (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Koncorde, I quote, "A sockpuppet is an onlinr identity used for purposes of deceptio . The term, [...] originally referred to false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to or about themselves, while pretending to be another person." So being as I haven't concealed my identity and haven't been arguing with myself using multiple accounts, (by all means, check my IP address if that's something you do, I'm in the PNW. No secrets here.) I don't know where you get sock puppet from, and I certainly don't see you or anyone else taking that IP Address or any of the other identity-concealing user names to task over hiding who they are. Yes I know who Mike is, I made a handful of minor edits to his page to reflect a remarriage, the birth of his child, and a few books to his list, for the sake of accuracy. That this is verboten because I'm familiar with the subject matter is kafkaesque. Ibson.writes (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Did you or did you not fail to disclose that you were in fact associated with the subject, and were canvassed from his facebook page with the express purpose of manipulating this discussion? Did you or did you not in fact discuss what you would be doing, and were motivated by one individual to take part in this discussion with a pre-set outcome? Per the second paragraph you neglected "The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization,[2] to manipulate public opinion,[3] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[4] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the main account operator. It is abundantly clear what the attempt was here, as it was in the prior AfD. The other editors to this topic are, in general, well established editors with thousands of edits to myriad topics. The IP has expressed a single opinion, and even registered to a single identity and if you believe that there are others in here that are socks, feel free to report them to the admins or raise your concerns, but as it stands - no, they are not concerning me as much as the blatantly obvious troop in front of me. And no, making edits to people you know is not verboten, but failing to disclose conflicts of interest is problematic. Koncorde (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • What's problematic to me is that you guys are so spun up about how we came to know that Mike's page had been killed off, and that we haven't memorized the forty two "Thou Shalt Nots". You guys are gatekeeping this like a bunch of elitist literary Shakespearean snobs, not volunteer encyclopedia curators. Nobody asked me for my CV at the door and I didn't even know "declaring my conflict of interest" or "being canvassed" was a thing. The original admin in question nuked a professional, high-sales author's page that has been around for 10+ years out of hand, and when we (people who know the author and felt his page deserved to stand) voiced our opposition to that, you immediately launched into an attack on the messengers and assumed bad faith right off the bat. Rather debating the message itself and recognizing that Mike is a notable author with an active fanbase (see Amazon, oh wait the premiere multi billion dollar sales platform isn't credible enough for this crowd) you and yours set about attacking us personally and numbering all the many reasons why our opinions are worthless. That #MakeOrwellFictionAgain hashtag makes more and more sense when some people think they're more equal than others. In your haste to gatekeep and keep Wikipedia "credible", what you've actually done is shredded its credibility to any of the hundreds of thousands of readers who follow Mike, or Kratman, or Correia (yes, Larry noticed this BS too), which means Baen will have noticed, which basically means you've alienated a huge swath of the fiction-consuming population all in the name of one simple author page. Well done, I'm out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibson.writes (talk • contribs) 21:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • 1. Your WP:SOAPBOX is showing. 2. The scale of unwarranted self importance and flair for dramatics is quite high it seems. The criteria for notability is so well known, and if you look at my initial comment (which remains a "Comment") there was nothing expressed other than actual constructive criticism of how the article got to Afd. The subsequent fallout has been driven by Mike himself, and his followers. Again, the process is so simple to follow, but after 10 years not even a rudimentary effort had been made to cite his article objectively or to establish notability. Editors cannot all be crystal balls. 3. I don't know "Larry", or Kratman, I have never read a Baen novel. I very much doubt I ever will. If hundreds of thousands of their fans all follow them in lockstep then that is their choice (they could of course just read this page and of they are objective see how ass-hat'ish the whole discussion is). But if they are convinced by rants on Facebook and in blogs then they were always going to do that. They always had that opinion to start with. This grandstanding is seen for what it is - hollow, devoid of anything but outrage culture and snowflake feelings dressed up as deeply held convictions. Koncorde (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Koncorde: I think the canvassee is referring to Larry Correia. If that is the case I will go ahead and say that after reviewing the article and a bit of googling, that I would not submit that one to AfD. He may in many people's estimation be a major jerk but he is at least a NOTABLE major jerk with several legitimate awards won, a stack of nominations alongside the legitimate awards, and notability as not just a slate-nominee but principal leader of the highly controversial Hugo-rigging attempt a few years back. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I came here from WP:ANI. The original PROD was for an WP:A7 due to a self-published/non-independent article, but the article isn't eligible for a PROD since it's been AfD'd already (the AfD was withdrawn). Never heard of this guy before, but I can't find any independently published reviews of his work, the page itself is under-referenced, and contains a number of promotional links. I'm not quite sure how he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. I can see how some people may think it's political based on my WP:BEFORE search, but political views don't matter here - the quality of the sourcing does. SportingFlyer T·C 16:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the sockpuppets probably think it's political because it's a pattern on the facebook page that directed the canvassing. Within that bubble they see anything they dislike as "political" along with using some incredibly nasty hate terms.
Examples:
"Mike Willis Undoubtedly deleted because she doesn't like you and she feels entitled to edit you out of history." [28]
"Mike Willis Michael Z Williamson well, there arent as many books for the fascists to burn anymore, so I guess this is how they do it now." [29]
Followed immediately by their posting the direct link to this discussion: [30]
Followed by the author declaring it likely to be for personal reasons, "Michael Z Williamson Gee, I wonder if this was one of the assholes I blocked in the last couple of days." [31]
Followed by: "Mike Willis Clearly a retaliation removal for a personal disagreement with you, Michael Z Williamson" [32]
Followed by another slur attack on the deleting admin: "Mike Willis And she/it is still being pissy by recommending the page be deleted. Yea, this is definitely personal on her side."[33]
Followed by admission of WP:OWN entanglements by the subject:
"Nolan Tomlinson How did you find out what was happening?"[34]
"Michael Z. Williamson I got pinged by someone who follows the page."[35]
  • Delete - Non-notable. May be worthy of a mention in another article but cannot support own article.--Jorm (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've reported the harassment and canvassing to ANI - the canvassing is bad, the harassment completely unacceptable. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Appears more like spam than an article, highly promotional. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - would explain further, but 'edit conflicts' are frustrating me. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep unless every bestselling author or person with an appearance on IMDB is "not notable". Bob the Cannibal (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counterpoint: all it takes to get you an IMDB page is a two-line cameo somewhere. Just having an IMDB page isn't notability, especially when your strongest claim to notability on the page is being listed as "miscellaneous crew". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be sure I double checked.
  • "Starship II: Rendezvous with Ramses" - not notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Written by Mark Racop (also not notable enough for a wikipedia page), sequel to a 1996/7 movie "Rock N Roll Starship", also not notable for a wikipedia page. Listing is as "miscellaneous crew" as "armorer".
  • "When Aliens Attack" - the only wikipedia notability is that it shares a name with a notable Futurama episode. Listed under "miscellaneous crew" again.
  • "The Best Defense" - as "stage crew" and "miscellaneous crew", not notable.
If the IMDB page mentioned something notable, maybe. But nothing on that IMDB page is remotely notable.
  • Counter-counterpoint: This guy's book "Tide of Battle" is "#962 in Science Fiction Short Stories" on Amazon. Right now And if you feel so strongly about him and his "cesspit of bigotry, hatred, foul mouths, and rampant racism"([citation needed]), log in and sign your comments. Bob the Cannibal (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is an incredibly cherry picked category with a small number of entries. Note that in actual book rankings it's "#730,290 in Books". See Also: tactics of SEO'ing Amazon rankings by picking small categories. [36] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, how many sci-fi short story collections are there in print, 963 perhaps? Needless to say, Amazon rankings aren't a reliable source either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmhmm, and the 2004 entry in Locus' best-seller list and the Hugo nomination don't make him notable? Bob the Cannibal (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One single listing is borderline if we are being REALLY generous. A Hugo nomination as part of an organized vote-rigging campaign is... list him on the page for the vote-rigging campaign Sad Puppies then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a Hugo nom was sufficient for notability, but a nomination in a category that wasn't awarded, not so much. Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Nominated for a Hugo legitimately, very good qualification for notability. Nominated in a category that was axed for vote rigging, as a part of the slate that was organizing said rule-breaking vote rigging? I mean... maybe notable for participating in an attempt to scam the awards system, but not qualification for notability as an author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A single nomination does not generally indicate notability. See WP:ANYBIO. 18:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I stand corrected. My underlying assumption was if someone could legitimately get nominated for a Hugo without having to cheat, that should mean that the Hugo ought to be one strong part of an overall notability resume. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you refuse to sign in and sign your comments? That looks quite a bit like you're a sockpuppet talking to yourself. And you also refuse to comment on the trade publication source? (locus) That right there is notable enough. The complaining about his supporters supporting him is a nonstarter: That's what supporters do. It'd be no different if detractors of anyone else challenged that person's notability. Their supporters would arrive to defend them. Bob the Cannibal (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Hugo nomination for a science fiction author would be impressive, yes, and would imply the existence of the kind of secondary sources we need to support a biography for him on Wikipedia - if it was a nomination for his fiction. It wasn't. —Cryptic 19:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to be very careful about what we say here, even if what went on in Facebook may give little sympathy. It's my understanding, that seems to be supported by Sad Puppies, is that many of those nominated had zero involvement in the campaign. Some went as far as to decline their nomination when they found out what happened. Since many of the works in Rabid Puppies were the same, and even for those from Vox Day's publisher I'm not sure if they were consulted on the plans, it likely applies to that list to. Unless there is actual evidence that the subject was an active participant and I see nothing in either the Sad Puppies article or our article on the subject to suggest they were, we should not suggest they are "notable for participating in an attempt to scam the awards system" since that's likely to lead people to believe they were an active participant rather than someone caught up in something someone else did. Even if someone was happy when they found out it happened, and to be clear, I'm just mentioning this to make the point since I have zero idea, it's still IMO wrong to say that. (Perhaps if they were actively promoting the campaign after they found out about it.) BTW, I don't think this is the place to talk about that. If RSS can be found which support someone's involvement then this can probably be included in a suitable article. If it can't then I'm not sure there's any reason for us to discuss it anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the IMDb thing is just weird. If Williamson is notable, it seems far more likely this would primarily come from them being an author or something similar than from their technical work recorded in IMDb. I mean seriously, you easily find people on IMDb with far more contributions, on far more noted work, who probably aren't notably. Heck, in about 1 minute I looked at someone who worked on Titanic and from their IMDb I see 60+ credits, 1 Primetime Emmy, 2 other awards and has a bunch of other nominations. While I'm not certain they're not notable, I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't and they definitely don't have an article. (I did a quick source check and found 1 news article which briefly mentions them.) I'm intentionally not naming them because I don't want to risk making them a target on anyone's Facebook page. But I'm sure anyone can easily find many many examples like this. Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no difference, IMDb isn't usable for notability purposes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that, but it's completely irrelevant to my point. In case there's still confusion, my point is that people who don't understand our notability criteria who have been canvassed from Facebook are trying to convince us the subject is notable based on evidence which is just completely silly. You don't need to understand our notability criteria to recognise that it's dumb to make a deal over some technical work in a about 3-5 shows (I was lazy to count and I'm not going to check now). It's just basic comment sense that if there is any chance that the subject is notable, it's almost definitely going to come from their work as an author, or something of that sort rather than the stuff mentioned on IMDb. My ultimate hope is that those canvassed will at least think a little more about what they're telling us so it at least makes some sense. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – no indication of meeting any notability guidelines. Authors who are actually notable don't need to send their fans to spam an AfD, because they have reliable, independent secondary sources attesting to their notability. (Do AfD pages ever get EC protection?) – Levivich 16:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Would greatly appreciate it, if IP 73.76.220.8 created an editing account. I'm assuming he's not a signed-out editor or a block evading editor. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep Changing my !vote per the sources added since I first replied here (the review, the thesis, Stars & Stripes). (Adding, per Stars and Stripes, to quote our own article on it: The other entities encompassed by the Defense Media Activity (the DoD News Channel and Armed Forces Radio and Television Service, for example), are command publications of the Department of Defense; only Stars and Stripes maintains complete editorial independence. I couldn't find any WP:RS book reviews or author coverage. The one possibility I could find (Big Issue Australia magazine) might be passing mention or might be more significant coverage but I can't access it. Lots of blogs and forum posts, obviously has an enthusiastic fanbase, but neither he nor his books have been written about. I understand the fan frustration; I've a number of favorite books and authors that I'd love to write articles for, but I just can't find the reliable sources to support them, so I can't. Schazjmd (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Well known author and winner of Baen's 2014 Best Military and Adventure SF Reader's Choice Award [37] KLoWnTaZ (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC) — KLoWnTaZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Quick check says: that "award" was only held for a short amount of time (3 years?), and it was a vanity award by the outfit that published most of his books, specifically only given to their authors (e.g. authors who were included in a very hyper specific and niche Baen-published book each year, Baen-published "The Year's Best Military and Adventure SF 2015" for the "2014 winner" followed by Baen anthology "Onward Drake!" in 2015, followed by Baen-published "The Year’s Best Military and Adventure SF, Volume 3" before they just canned the "award"). Not notability criteria, basically Self-Awarded. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looks like another sockpuppet [38]. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Also a winner of Bean's The Year's Best Military & Adventure SF 2015 [39] KLoWnTaZ (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the same award as in your last comment. Though I can understand the confusion given that Baen is basically a vanity press with little editorial/production standards that can't even keep straight what year they awarded one of their fake awards, since they list him as the 2014 winner for the "2015" collection here [40] but then as the "2015" winner at your new link. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Michael Z Williamson was also a Prometheus Award nominee in 2006 [41]KLoWnTaZ (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the histrionics from his fans and the SPAs and the sockpuppets and the meatpuppets and the off-Wikipedia agitation amount to nothing in the end because nobody has been able to bring forward a single reliable, independent source that devotes significant coverage to this author and his work. Therefore, he is not now notable. Blogs and zines and Baen promotionalism don't count on Wikipedia. Especially bizarre and counterproductive is the racist comparison to N. K. Jemisin, who is the only author to have won three consecutive Hugo Awards for Best Novel, who has won many other notable awards and whose work has been reviewed in the New York Times and many other major pubmications. She is indisputably notable and in my opinion, Williamson isn't. Sorry. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am changing my recommendation to Keep based on the additional sources that have come to light and the evaluations of editors with expertise in science fiction. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple actual Hugo award winner, not merely nominee, and none of her nominations the result of clear campaigns of vote-rigging (so none of her nominations were rescinded because the category was withdrawn that year).
- Recipient of numerous other awards that are not self-awarded claptrap including:
- two Locus awards.
- a Nebula.
- an ALA Alex Awards win.
Now, in addition to trying to portray that resume as equal with Williamson's lackluster and virtually nonexistent one, but also adding in the slur of calling her "anti-white bigoted" above clearly counts as a "racist comparison". To attempt to portray the very observation that said attack is undeniably racist, as a 'personal attack' would fall I believe in the category of DARVO. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And accusations of racism definitely meet the definition of WP:Casting aspersions. The original poster's complaint would have been just as forceful without adding the attack that the poster was racist. Considering your own postings to this discussion, howver, I have little hope I'll get through to you. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. It is undeniable that wording such as "for instance, N._K._Jemisin who is both notably leftist and anti-white bigoted, has won awards solely on her racial/gender identity" is a racist attack on the author N.K. Jemisin. It's not "casting aspersions" to observe the obvious. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet any inclusion criteria. There is just not enough coverage. Having an active fan base is not a criterion for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:AUTHOR. There isn't significant independent coverage of the books, much less evidence of the kind of impact the notability guideline describes. CyreJ (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And where is the WP:AGF here, folks? Not all of us are sockpuppets or SPAs. Take a look at my Wiki history. It's getting pretty annoying to constantly get accused of that. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply You are neither a sock/meatpuppet nor an SPA, Jmaynard, but a lot of the accounts participating in this train wreck are. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I Concur with Jay Maynard where is the WP:AGF? I created my account back in 2011 just never felt strongly enough about an issue before to comment before. I'm new to the whole thing and am struggling to learn this format, but now that I am trying I'm suddenly a sockpuppet. Not a very inclusive environment.KLoWnTaZ (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Yes, you opened an account eight years ago, KLoWnTaZ, and kept it in your back pocket unused until now when you emerged as an Single purpose account who does not even understand that in-house awards given by a publisher to its own authors are of zero value for establishing notability on Wikipedia. Maybe you stumbled into this debate of your own accord but it seems vastly more likely that you were recruited for this mission by someone. I've got to give you credit for remembering your password, though.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Assume Good Faith is not a suicide pact, sorry.--Jorm (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sadly I have to report another set of commentary on his WP:CANVAS link that's looking like doxxing or threatening: [42]
"James Harvey Who is Rong Qiqi and why is he editing your Wikipedia page?"
"Jonathan Markum Yea he altered it to say Mike CLAIMS to have been in the USAF. Since when does Wikipedia require your DD-214?!? Lost Valor laws are tough on false claims I thought, and a serious individual could find out..."
This is worrisome. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the doxing? If someone were to post some personally identifying information on the editor in question, I'd hand you the pitchfork and hold a torch myself. But that's just a question with not even a "Someone find who this guy is!" attached. Methinks you jump the gun. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Who is Rong Qiqi and why is he editing your Wikipedia page?" "...and a serious individual could find out..." Looks like a threat that someone is going to seek @Rong Qiqi:'s identity to me. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reviewing what goes on at that facebook page, I have to disagree. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many scholars conclude that Rong Qiqi, while a notable figure in early Chinese literature, is likely fictional or legendary and not historical. Rong Qiqi (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I, for one, am going to assume that you are indeed not fictional. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Puppetry at this Afd, is so pathetic. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the personal attack. I'm nobody's sock puppet, as a review of my Wikipedia activity will clearly show. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I was posting about the 'new' red-colored & 'revived' red-colored editors. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It almost sounds like you're daring someone to run a checkuser against you.--Jorm (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. I have nothing to hide. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: this appears to be an unpublished dissertation, which is considered Grey literature and may not satisfy the sourcing guidelines. Could you please re-check and see if this has received more publication notoriety than having its PDF put up on the institution's website? Did the author come back and condense this into any actual peer-reviewed journal articles, for instance? [43] "What this means in practical terms is that unpublished dissertations are almost never widely read. The vast majority of dissertations serve their purpose of gaining a Ph.D. for their author and then fade into obscurity. If you write a dissertation that you want to have an impact, you will need to revise it and publish it in some form." 73.76.220.8 (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use with care per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a publicly available final version of a thesis submitted for a PhD degree, supervised by two people with PhDs. It's good enough for this purpose and almost certainly better in many ways than the average RS cited in an article about a science-fiction author. WP:RS says: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used". It then adds some things to be cautious about which, sure, we should be cautious about. Haukur (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary source - I looked through it and reference citations for this Williamson, as opposed to a Jack Williamson, are twice as "Personal Correspondence", only once referencing the book Freehold along with a small footnote about works the author didn't bother to review. I will leave it to people more familiar with the policies than myself to determine whether that makes it an "often, in part, primary source". 73.76.220.8 (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The worth of a source like this is not in what other sources it references but in the analytical content it has - in this case, for example, the dissertation discusses Williamson's work in connection with American attitudes to the UN. This really is not at all a bad or marginal source. In the last author article I co-wrote a lot of the content is based on 200 word book reviews. And this is okay! But we would have loved to have a couple of pages of discussion in a PhD thesis for some deeper coverage. Haukur (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no idea what a dissertation should look like but it does not appear that this one has gained traction. As to the content, I think this constitutes a trivial mention of the subject as he does not get even a single paragraph to himself in a document running 328 pages. This is not the case for other authors, including those discussed within the chapter he appears in. I'm mildly curious as to whether the paper's author focused too much on authors from one publisher for the latter time period. As an aside, oddly, I have read a fair number of the authors referenced within. ogenstein (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NAUTHOR. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. After 15 years, suddenly two people simultaneously decide the page isn't relevant and pull it. No reference is sufficient to validate the content. The fact is, Wikipee is irrelevant, and my sales and credentials do not depend on it for either existence or credibility. My readers should not have to abase, degrade, and humiliate themselves to document that a best-selling, award-winning author with over 20 publications and 100 editions in 3 languages is more culturally relevant than a disgusting freak who was fucked to death by a horse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumclaw_horse_sex_case
  • Delete it. I do not wish association with the vile, fat, basement-dwelling wankers who have appointed themselves the keepers of knowledge. Let them keep their horse perverts and 4th rate TV shows. It says all we need to know.Mzmadmike (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. There's a difference between having an article on the man who buggered off his mortal coil and having an article about the resultant legal case, much like there is a difference between having an article about Aaron Alexis and an article about the crime he committed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 00:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think this can be closed by WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The closing statement/rationale should reflect the consensus of the discussion. Perhaps this could be added to the reasons to snow close to avoid further disruption, but BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't supersede what everyone else has written. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, anything less than the standard 7 days is probably wrong at this point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because thats funnier. Rong Qiqi (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 1. I find it really interesting that a lot of the most vocal DELETE comments on here are unsigned. In one case, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uncle_G) decided to take this further and post a sockpuppet allegation on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Long-term_sockpuppetry_at_AFD). Never mind that the allegation is false, it's a characteristic of much of the DELETE crowd (though, admittedly, not all). 2. @doug weller: There are four criteria. Williamson _at least_ meets 4(c) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals) for reference), by way of a Hugo nomination and multiple mentions on Locus bestseller lists. 3. Apparently the article needs cleanup, and sourcing for the above. That's a documentation demand, not a deletion. 4. Many of the deletion requests are coming becomes of personal animus, or dislike of Williamson's fans, not for rational reasons.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rumplestiltskin1992: only one "Delete" !vote comes from the IP address (and a quick glances shows there is only one), all of the others are from registered accounts. I don't see that as interesting. Note that we treat WP:MEATPUPPETS the same way as socks. I don't have an open mind on the author, but I do on his article. We've a lot of articles on various types of nutjobs, a lot of them right wing. Someone has emailed me asking if I'd look at some sources that they found but don't want to edit the article. If they look useful I'll add them. At the moment I leaning towards keep but have refrained from !voting either way simply because I thought material might turn up. Doug Weller talk 07:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Doug Weller:@Rumplestiltskin1992: I really don't think there is personal animus, that is certainly projecting by a group of fans that have decided that there is a political motivation to anything that isn't in support of the author. Per Doug, I see no unsigned comments at all - and almost all "deletes" do so because the article at that time failed to demonstrate notability and would only succeed in doing so if sources were introduced. That this is finally happening is great, but this is what the many socks and meats of the author should have done originally but have instead focused upon personal attacks against specific editors and admins, or general accusations.
      • That this is being coordinated off-wiki emphasises a clear Conflict of Interest from many of the "KEEP" voters (although not all) who have failed to declare their personal relationship with the subject and / or their own personal motivation. This in and of itself is probably a small oversight on their part as not being aware of wikipedias rules, but it is still a significant reason why there must be caution taken with attempts to WP:SNOW an argument or discussion. Koncorde (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep probably per Keepers (tldr), but mainly because, contrary to all policy, I regard good views as a strong indication of notability, & he has had over 34,000 on the "all time" metric, which is very good for a contemporary author. Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Consider the optics of this. Having an administrator speedy-delete a decade-old article which had already survived an AfD, then required cleanup in 24 separate Wikipedia pages to remove internal links to the just-deleted page, looks bad. When restored and proposed for AfD, the resulting discussion looks like mob action (on both sides). An admin has just permanently banned the author's Wikipedia account for his ill-considered edits on this subject. The current article as it has been changed today doesn't particularly resemble the article which was proposed for deletion, so the entire thing is coming across more as "how much do we detest this guy" than "he's not relevant enough for notice". He's a polarizing figure, we need to avoid being caught up in that part. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Survival of the previous AfD was due to large scale sockpuppetry as well [44], so the problem there is probably the failure to review the moment that was proven. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was a messy discussion, though not quite as messy as this one. But it is, perhaps, worth noting that keep !voters at the previous AfD included users DGG, Edward321, Piotrus and Sturmvogel_66. Haukur (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too late. The discussion has stained Wikipedia in the eyes of the segment of fandom that has to do with military SF. As far as the fans are concerned, he's gone because he's a conservative writer, and there's no way to erase that. Frankly, I don't think the fans care any more; you've given them ample evidence to draw their own conclusions, and that pretty much ends the matter. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's partly because people generally have their own weltanschauung and view anything that does not adhere strictly to it online as something to be dismissed. They're not going to give a damn about anything but the result, and will happily ignore the events that led up to it. In a way, this is precisely what happened with the T&S situation, so we are not immune to this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "pattern" of the sockpuppets definitely is eye-catching, looking at the old page and Uncle G's analysis of it with the conclusion "In retrospect, the "did not materially affect outcome of AFD" conclusion in 2008 at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Trasel seems quite wrong.", even more so when I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trasel/Archive.
As for the assertion "As far as the fans are concerned, he's gone because he's a conservative writer", the content of the WP:CANVASsing facebook page shows pretty clearly that no level of evidence would ever have disabused them from their delusions. From the moment they started attacking the deleting admin and making cracks about him being a "pha66otte" and attacking his user page with commentary like "macOS, NPR, gluten free diet, we all see where this is going and why they deleted your page" or "What in the actual soyboy hipster?", they had themselves convinced this was some giant conspiracy. Evidence to the contrary will be disregarded at will, anything they can twist to "confirm" will be twisted, as with all Conspiracy theory nonsense. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you're, here, directly doing exactly the thing you speak against ("Evidence to the contrary will be disregarded at will, anything they can twist to "confirm" will be twisted, as with all Conspiracy theory nonsense.") you make a good argument for ignoring the vast majority of the Delete votes, _and every comment you have made in this mess_. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why it's folly to pick apart one person's rationale and assume it applies to all of them. The vast majority of the Delete arguments are based in our policies, whereas a fair chunk of the earlier Keep arguments (not so much the later ones) amount to "I like this guy and am lodging this as a protest vote against these tree-hugging hippy liberals". —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 00:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject's DIVA desire for deletion is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ignoring the author's words here (I see them as a form of reverse-psychology) and assessing the article's sources as they stand there's no "there" there. The sources are wanting at best, with maybe the only usable sources being the two reviews of Freehold. Everything else is a name-drop, a nomination for an award that was never given out to any of its nominees (I note others above state that there was ballot-box stuffing involved with this), an interview, something he wrote himself, a readers' poll (it goes without saying these have less rigour than the vetting process for literary awards), and single-month entries on bestseller lists (one of which is a collaboration with a luminary in SF fiction, making that one more suspect). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the sources found, switching to Keep. No comment on the behaviour of the subject or the fans canvassed to this conversation, as that is not very relevant here beyond the canvassing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 08:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well then. Apparently I am now a target. "Jonathan Markum After all don't want the Houston pha990T @ IP 73.76.220.8 Comcast doing his BS..." [45] These are some rather nasty people. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mad Mike does not suffer fools gladly; rarely does he suffer them at all. He really does see this as Wikipedia deliberately choosing an article about a guy who died after having sex with a horse over an article about a well-known author in his field. I think ht really has washed his hands of Wikipedia. Hardened opinions from people like the IP editor a couple of comments up do nothing to change his opinion. At this point, he's well and truly alienated, and I would be extremely surprised if he were ever to take the actions needed and ask to be unblocked. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he has washed his hands of Wikipedia, then why is he still attacking the IP? This looks more to me like someone who has some sort of obsession to control things and can't bring himself to realise that his efforts in this case are never going to work because he knows no other way. Hell, I'd argue the only reason he brought up the asshole from Enumclaw is because he needed a noodle to throw at the wall. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 01:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion. I added a section to the article based on that PhD I mention above. It has since be removed by Jorm with the edit summary "I don't think so".[46] Haukur (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I just put it back, with an equally unhelpful edit summary. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And reading the new material, I was immediately struck by the similarity with Tom Kratman. I guess that'll be the next politically incorrect author to be targeted. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kratman article pointed me to a story in Stars and Stripes, so I'll insert that and hope it survives the wrath of the folks who think the article isn't sufficiently sourced. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bad piece.[47] It does have a little bit of analysis and tries to put things in context. It isn't promotional or purely an interview. I think this is a little additional step towards satisfying GNG. There seems to be a similar article in the Big Issue in 2016, though I can't access it: [48] Haukur (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, that first source you linked is a passing mention at best, which doesn't qualify for WP:N. Second, this is significantly off-topic from the deletion discussion of the current article, which is Michael Z. Williamson, not Tom Kratman. Anything related to the Tom Kratman article, take it into that article's talk page. Thanks. --letcreate123 (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite follow. The Stars and Stripes article which Jmynard brought in has 315 words on Williamson and I haven't given Kratman any thought. Haukur (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, when I said it was a "passing mention at best", I meant that in the case of Tom Kratman. Sorry for the confusion. --letcreate123 (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, okay, I see. I agree we need to focus on Williamson but of course we can look around a bit and think what we normally do for books and authors at AfD. I'm reminded of my last attempt at a WP:RESCUE where you can find me being impressed by a print-run of 8000 copies :D Anyway, I'm signing off for the night. Love you all. Haukur (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I formatted the PhD reference, and added material on the anthology (including a review from the Galveston Daily News). The first review of Freehold has comments about Williamson's politics / philosophy and how that effects his writings, including a reply from Williamson. LEaving aside his writings, I have seen online the statement that "He was deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Desert Fox. Williamson is a state-ranked competitive shooter in combat rifle and combat pistol. He has consulted on military matters, weapons and disaster preparedness for Discovery Channel and Outdoor Channel productions and is Editor-at-Large for Survivalblog, with 300,000 weekly readers. In addition, Williamson tests and reviews firearms and gear for manufacturers." If these claims can be substantiated then he'd surely have a basis for notability under GNG. EdChem (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He has added a new rant to his blog which he also linked from his "backup" Facebook sockpuppet account. [49][50] Highlights include "They then went Full Autism Retard" and "These are largely fat, incel leftist failures". Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That header image of the gun just screams "I have nothing of value so I intend to intimidate" to me. That's... well. Sad, I guess.--Jorm (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of a "leftist incel". It seems to be a contradiction in terms since the Incel movement generates out of extremely conservative misogynist and racist groups. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That mage of the gun goes with the blog title, "The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse", and additionally references his Second Amendment activism. There is no intent to intimidate; if anything, he'd consider the people here individually not worth his time. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like he's being attacked for political reasons rather than any actual problem with the article. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the sole concern of all the experienced editors who have looked at this is the notability of the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Experienced editors" should see how much feedback there is on this AfD page to recognize that the subject is notable enough to draw this big a crowd, means he's notable. 65.96.53.130 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is the reason for this turnout, not nobility. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the Baen "Best Military and Adventure SF Reader's Choice Award" you should start by looking at how it is awarded. The panel of nominees is only those authors who they put into the book in question. The "voting" is only conducted via the Baen forums to choose the "best" story from that one short anthology book. It is in essence an internal Baen award given solely to Baen employees for the purpose of promotionalism, with the nominees a set of Baen employees pre-selected by other Baen employees and then the "vote" occurring only on that small set of nominees in an environment owned and "proctored" (interesting word choice) by Baen employees. Unlike legitimate awards like the Hugo or Nebula where nominations and voting happen independently of a publisher. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether this is because English is not your first language or some other reason, but you seem to be using employees in a weird way. Most authors who have published with Baen are most likely not employees of Baen by the ordinary meaning of that word in English. Even if they have an exclusive publishing contract with Baen it is unlikely they would be considered employees. And I'm not sure how common such contracts are in the book publishing world anyway Publishing contract#Book publishing agreements, I suspect more likely the contract will at most apply to the work and maybe any derived works. And of course advances and the like may require a book be completed by a deadline or maybe at worst will prevent another book being published until the book the advanced is for is completed. I'm not even sure whether the editor of each volume is am employee, my impression is a lot of that sort of stuff tends to be contract work. Likewise most people on the Baen forums are likely not employees of Baen probably including a number of the moderators, although as a private forum [51] I never joined I've never seen what goes on there. [52] [53] suggest that theoretically people can send a postcard or letter to vote for or nominate a book. It also makes I'm sure those involved in the nitty gritty background stuff like proctoring are probably mostly employees but most of the winners probably aren't. This doesn't mean that I think the award has any bearing on notablity or that I disagree that it's an internal award, simply that calling people employees when they aren't employees by the ordinary definition of that word is likely to cause confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I used the word "employer" myself somewhere above. It may not be very accurate, but the point I wanted to make was the not-independent-in-the-WP:N-context thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If what is said here about the "Best Military and Adventure SF Reader's Choice Award" is accurate, it is not an indication of notability. However, my recommendation stands, as others have reported clearly independent sources of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE to closing admin: Please see this regarding sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/canvassing at this AfD and the former one: [54]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cullen, up above: "All the histrionics from his fans and the SPAs and the sockpuppets and the meatpuppets and the off-Wikipedia agitation amount to nothing in the end because nobody has been able to bring forward a single reliable, independent source that devotes significant coverage to this author and his work. Therefore, he is not now notable. Blogs and zines and Baen promotionalism don't count on Wikipedia.". Softlavender (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no WP:SIGCOV from any independent RS (Stars and Stripes is not independent as it is his past employer, and is not SIGCOV); we have references in this BLP that should be deleted (Buzz Sports & Entertainment Magazine is not an RS, per the Talk Page note). We have a few passing mentions, from an unpublished phd thesis, from a non-notable student, who disclosed in their thesis that their source was "Mike Williamson, personal correspondence (email), 1 March 2013" (per Talk Page); and minor mentions (never in a biographical capacity) in weak-RS/non-RS. No decent RS has ever wanted to do a dedicated piece on this subject - none? The most important plank in this subject's notability ... is their Wikipedia BLP? Britishfinance (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I slightly disagree on Stars and Stripes, I think we can see it as independent enough. Sure, there will likely be a positive angle, but it's not useless. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest you check out the Wikipedia article on Stars and Stripes: "Stars and Stripes is an American military newspaper that focuses and reports on matters concerning the members of the United States Armed Forces. It operates from inside the Department of Defense, but is editorially separate from it, and its First Amendment protection is safeguarded by the United States Congress, to whom an independent ombudsman, who serves the readers' interests, regularly reports." It's as much an RS as any major newspaper - which it is. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Stars and Stripes are not independent when it comes to ex employees; they actively, and openly, give coverage to ex employees for reasons particular to the goals of the militaty. No decent RS has ever done a piece on Williamson, but Stars and Stripes have done (he is not the sole focus), only because they want to show the highlight his post-army career (which is fine, but not something that could qualify for GNG in WP). Most importantly, the RS is so poor in this article, that the Stars and Stripes article is used as the source to say that he has sold over 500,000 books? Again, would a reader thank us for relying on Stars and Stripes for such a fact? Isn't it strange that we can't find a proper RS (that any normal reader would accepts as an RS), that say how many books he has sold? I struggle to make a WP:PRESERVE case for him as I can't objectively verify he has sold lots of books. ??Britishfinance (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easy call. A large reader base already indicates notability, and Stars and Stripes is a decent source. Several mentions by Locus, various other sources, a Hugo nomination, good publishing houses, it adds up. Almond Plate (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sad Puppies. There's no doubt this is an author with a large and avid readership and several highly successful books. What's surprising is the lack of significant coverage - not even a book review from a significant newspaper? That's rather surprising. I think the Stars and Stripes article is helpful, but there should be more. This dispute may trigger that needed coverage, ironically, hence my Redirect instead of deleting the article. The behavior from Williamson and his supporters is less than ideal in some cases (and some on the other side as well), and while some valid points are made, Wikipedia is driven by reliable sources and those are really sparse here. Ravensfire (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has an entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction which is an excellent reference work for the genre. The subject passes WP:ANYBIO and so the following policies apply: WP:ATD, WP:CENSOR, WP:NPOV and WP:PRESERVE, indicating that we should not delete the page. Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The SF Encyclopedia's policy is essentially to include any author with a SF book (with some minor exceptions). This is not a source of notability. ogenstein (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break

  • Comment. More sources - at least I don't think they've been mentioned. Nominee for the Libertarian Prometheus Award several times but never even a Finalist.[55] His papers at Northern Illinois University.[56] But I don't think those help. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter would at least seem to indicate an academic interest in preservation of the works/materials, which would seem to at least be a moderate indicator of significance. No? DBalling (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm convinced that the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry and has enough reliable coverage that some kind of article can be sourced. If the relevant WP policies and guidelines don't agree (which I do not concede), then the policies and guidelines need some work because this author is certainly notable enough in his field to be covered here. The current article may be too promotional in tone and have some material that is too tenuous for inclusion (currently I would cull the second paragraph in Career and the entire Themes section), but we should have some article on this subject. Some of the deletes seem to be predicated on or motivated by the subject's disagreeableness and anti-WP campaigning, and should be disregarded. As I believe the subject is notable enough, and not marginally, we should also not accede to the subject's request above to delete. Finally, there is extended discussion on this page about the subject's campaign against the deletion editors (and aspersions against the keep editors, and vitriolic responses from the keep editors, etc.) ... can that be moved to talk? Such matters have NOTHING to do with the question of whether or not WP should have a page on this subject. Vadder (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with sad puppies. Single paragraphs mentions do not establish notability, even in RS. There are one or two reviews that may pass muster, but I am not too sure. Its weak may may pass. But on reflection the reviews at all low key.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There's a lot of cruft in the reference list: awards nomination lists, bestseller lists, the same article twice with different formats, etc. But there's barely enough content there for WP:NAUTHOR when you thoroughly comb through it all. Now, that said, there's nothing excusing the comportment of Williamson and his fans on Wikipedia in response to that issue. However, AfD should not ever be punitive in nature. So while I'll happily support the action being undertaken at AN/I, I would suggest the article should probably (just by the hair of its teeth) remain. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Printed reviews. I am now aware of three printed reviews for Williamson's earliest books, they are in Locus and es:FOSFAX. Haukur (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Full disclosure: I personally find Williamson odious both personally and politically, and I came to this discussion after seeing rants about the deletion on both his and another right-wing blog. OTOH -- I'm very aware of the sff community and its "notable" authors, and I think Williamson rises at least to the requisite level of notability for inclusion here, especially as relates to his part in the failed Sad Puppy uprisings. IMHO either a "keep" or at the very least a "redirect" is warranted, with some discussion of the Puppies to be included if the article is kept. His low sales rankings at Amazon tell us he is not especially popular amongst readers in general, but he is a good example of Sad Puppy authors -- and the Pups are certainly a notable element of science fiction fandom history.Amazondoc (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Attempted to append secondard / tertiary sources to establish notoriety, but the edits were deleted with a commend of "How does this help?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.36.159 (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not changing my !vote (which was weak keep) but just a general note for those keeping score, a doctoral thesis that interviewed Williamson along with several other SF authors is of weak reliability at all, let alone for establishing notability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ETA To the IP immediately above, the reason why is because those are not what Wikipedia would consider reliable sources. For instance, IMDB runs afoul of WP:UGC. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable for a Hugo would swing it, but being listed by the Sad Puppies doesn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ETA To Simonm: Well the Worldcat citation seems to have made it in and been reformatted, so I'm good with that. Curious why Internet Speculative Fiction DB bibliography doesn't rate? To Andy Dingley: Is a Nebula award now a requirement for SF/authors to become "of note"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.36.159 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ISFDB is literally a fan wiki [57]. That would be WP:UGC. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Imadethisstupidaccount: ISFDB is not a wiki. It has a wiki attached to it, but the database is vetted by multiple people, and nothing gets added to it that isn't vetted. It's an actual database, not a wiki. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally a wiki. As in the database is built on wiki technology, and even if the fan content is vetted for accuracy, it's still WP:UGC. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. There are two components of the website: the database, and the wiki. The database is where all the information is stored. That's the part that's vetted (every single edit, no matter who submits it, is vetted). The wiki is used for communication mostly. The only integration between them is the passing of login information so a person doesn't have to login on both parts of the site. You can download your own copy of the database engine used for ISFDB here if you want. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "The ISFDB MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY". This is not a reliable source. They go into further detail if you're interested. They're similar to this site and cannot be used to determine notability. ogenstein (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His anthology Forged in Blood was offered as a selection by the Science-Fiction Book Club, which, I think, confers legitimacy on the book. The anthology is a collection of stories set in the author's "Freehold Universe," so the fact that other authors were willing to write stories set in a universe created by this author and that a serious publisher offered the result for sale suggests (to me) that the author does meet the notability requirements. Question: Why isn't it enough that the author has a dozen or more traditionally-published books (albeit all by Baen) over the last fifteen years? --Greg (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all are published by Baen. As would have been evident until someone stripped out the publisher/ISBN info, the Target: Terror series was published by Avon. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I looked up "Science Fiction Book Club" and it's basically the literary equivalent of an old get-20-cds-for-a-penny-after-shipping-then-buy-20-more-at-huge-markup "club". It certainly doesn't fit any of the 4 points at WP:AUTHOR. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're selling the SFBC short. See, for instance: [58].Amazondoc (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO the subject meets our notability guidelines Lightburst (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain which of the 3 points the subject meets? I cannot find any that match. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's just enough here from third-party sources to meet WP:V. --Goobergunch|? 04:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it an article must meet Wikipedia:Notability for its category, in this case WP:AUTHOR and then it is the sources themselves that have to satisfy the Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The Verifiability standard alone is not enough if Notability is not reached. Can you address if Williamson meets the points in WP:AUTHOR? Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read the section again, and this time scroll up to the section header, where it says "Additional criteria". In particular, see the sentence "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." (Emphasis in original.) So not meeting the strict specifications of that set of additional criteria is not sufficient to say that he's not notable. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is my long-standing position that articles that can be written consistent with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP should generally not be deleted. Notability is not a Wikipedia policy, just a useful guideline. WP:WHYN provides the (sound) reasons for the notability guideline. We should not be trying to go over and above the reasons for the guideline to find reasons to delete articles. See also WP:IAR. (And merging isn't really a good option in this case.) --Goobergunch|? 17:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article was only nominated for deletion because some SJW snowflakes don't like the subject. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. 2601:647:4F00:81:11A3:F2B2:82A0:B892 (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • disgraceful. This whole farce is a disgrace.
Original speedy delete by an anonymous user.
On the grounds it was purely a marketing tool yet this whole discussion board is about wether he is worthy by some vague arbitrary rules to be on you site.
Only 2 non anonymous/signed in pro delete users that are actually involved one of which jorm clearly wants the page taken down for purely personal reasons of dislike as indicated repeatedly by his comments the other purely on WP:standards grounds which he is helping to address.
To address the original complaint that the page is just a marketing tool for the author that makes no sense who is looking up a wiki page for somebody they are not already at least partly familiar with.
To address the second Aldolf Hitler has a page, the politics nor morality of the subject should have anything whats so ever to do with them having a page.
As to the last that depends entirely on WP standards. I do not care either way,what the out come is as long as it stands or fails on those merits alone. And not the bias of some random trolls or a single editor with a clear axe to grind.
I will how ever say that as a prolific reader it is of great value to me to be able to look into the nature and history of the author of the works i am reading as it provides interesting insights into the worlds and characters they made.
And the first place i always look for this information is wikipedia.
every thing on the article is perfectly well sourced for what it is it may be brief compared to other pages but so what is it as detailed as it needs to be for people wanting to know a bit more about the author.
Any way main point is that you really should not allow unregistered editing there is no good reason not to create a generic account to track your edits after all your still anonymous if you do it right but at least then other people editing the same doc can be more aware of whats happening and not conflict.
Sorry for original miss post in wrong area also cleaned up and removed unnecessary waffling.
WardedOne (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC) — WardedOne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not we allow unregistered editing is not debatable on en.wp because it is a mandate from the charity that maintains Wikipedia's servers. And the article's sourcing at the time I made my argument was iffy at best; it's since been improved thanks to other editors working on the article while this debate is ongoing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 07:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While the guy might be a twit, he's still selling books, he matters to enough people to be here.Nickpheas (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If he mattered it would be possible to produce some better sourcing then we have. So how about an in depth analysis of his work by someone other then himself or his publisher, how about an interview? It seems to me the most coverage he got was over the attempted to fix the hugos one year.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What coverage did he get for the Hugo-thing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Precious little. The work was widely vilified as probably the worst single nominee ever in that category, and quite possibly the worst item on the whole slate, but MZW didn't seem to have any great involvement in the campaign. He was there because one of the organisers thought their mate deserved a gong. Nickpheas (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, "precious little" and "widely vilified" seems like a contradiction. Do you have some sources we could use? Haukur (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see one. He didn't get any coverage. The work and the nomination thereof did. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 21:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is kind of my point, the best source we have here is the stuff about the Sad Puppies, and he is not even mentioned. Simply put he does not matter, even when he is part of a controversy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...that's a little Zen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Even when he's involved in a notable controversy he's not notable enough to be mentioned in the Reliable Sources on that controversy". Indeed very Zen! "And the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club." ;) Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Wait, "precious little" and "widely vilified" seems like a contradiction. Do you have some sources we could use?" There is vast amounts of discussion at File770.com, but wading through thousands of five year old posts is beyond me right now. To clarify. MZW was nominated in the Best Related Work for a book that appeared to be a set of quotes he'd found on rec.arts.funny. The book was talked about and no-one could see any redeeming features or justification for the nomination, even by puppy standards. MZW though received very little attention as an individual. He didn't, as far as I can remember, campaign for his book. He kept his head down and was largely ignored.Nickpheas (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot rely on online forums as sources because they are user-generated content. (and before you ask, this is the same reason we can't use IMDb and one of the reasons (the other being it being circular) we don't cite Wikipedia.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 17:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly suspect Nickpheas knows that, and that's the point. The subject received little RS coverage from their book being nominated. But in the discussions in forums and other non RS that they read, the book was widely vilified by most who actually checked it out. So no contradiction or tautology. Nil Einne (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) Ok folks so here's the refs we have to establish notability. If reasons can be found to exclude these I'd consider changing my !vote but I think they get over the WP:GNG bar. Barely. [1][2][3] (Note this is not a short blurb with WP:ROUTINE coverage but a literature survey.) [4]. So we have three reviews and the Stars and Stripes thing. That's probably enough to get over the bar if we're being charitable. Now that said, there are a lot of inappropriate refs on the article (for instance the Guardian article doesn't mention him at all). However I'd suggest to a lot of the new faces to AfD that they should consider that notability guidelines do not confer any sense of quality. I'm a science fiction and fantasy author. I like to think I'm not half bad. I am also entirely non-notable. So perhaps a good suggestion would be not to take deletion discussions too personally regardless of how it ends up. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.sfsite.com/12a/fr189.htm
  2. ^ https://www.stripes.com/former-troops-building-second-careers-in-military-science-fiction-1.417224#.WT5fwuvyvcs
  3. ^ https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/new-titles/adult-announcements/article/71837-authenticity-counts-science-fiction-fantasy-2016-2017.html
  4. ^ https://www.galvnews.com/books/article_94159d9d-f50c-5d9d-87c9-fa836e743031.html
As the editor who added the Guardian-ref, you are right. My thinking is that "Hugo voters, however, gave “no award” in five categories" lends support that the primary Hugo-refs has some weight and deserves some mention. I haven't seen any secondary sources like Stars and Stripes that mentions he got nominated for a Hugo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SF Site seems a little meh, but may be acceptable. One could argue that using bookreviews at all is a little WP:INHERITED. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher's Weekly does not appear to be reliable in this context. As noted by @Girth Summit: in a different AfD [59], " The Publishers Weekly reviews are very short, more of a synopsis than a review, and they don't have a reviewers name attached to them - I think they churn out one of these for basically every book that gets published - I don't see how that establishes notability." The specific entry in Publisher's Weekly, with the promotional text quoted from Baen being more than half the "review", looks more like a promotional submission handed to the magazine than a true review with meaningful analysis. I also think Grabergs makes a fair point about the WP:IHERITED policy. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the PW source in this context. It is good for what it is good for, including an amount of WP:N. Yes, a large part is a quote from a Baen-rep, but part of the point is that PW thought it was worth quoting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to admit to having a good laugh at the dishonesty of the Publisher's Weekly promo content from Baen as well when I compare it to the Stripes coverage. In the Baen promo, "The author’s experience shows in the way he depicts battle strategies, gear, and the mind-set of the characters, says Toni Weisskopf, publisher at Baen" but in Stripes, "but doesn’t use many of the military experiences since he was involved repairing air conditioners". What's that old song? "One of these things is not like the other..." Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the Galveston News, that's probably the best Reliable Source I've seen, but I don't see how it establishes notability for the author. I can't see how the evidence presented manages to satisfy either the requirement "is widely cited by peers or successors" or "such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" or "(c) won significant critical attention,". Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was one of the people who reviewed the PW link in the Kratman article. They're quite different - the PW is a survey article rather than a blurb in this case. However if it's paid promotional content by Baen then, yes, that should be struck. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upon review the PW article in discussion here (not in Kratman) makes reference to books published by Orbit and Tor as well as Baen, so I doubt it's paid promo. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether paid or unpaid it looks like the content is largely submitted by the publishers rather than written by someone willing to put their byline on it. Lack of a byline, to me, indicates it isn't staff written. "Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content are also questionable." Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the SF Site review, I am not sure what to make of it. Wikipedia's page on it indicates that some level of WP:UGC existed before it went basically defunct due to funding issues (as noted on the site's main page) and the review in question is copyrighted not to SF Site but "Copyright © 2004 Michael M Jones". It also doesn't appear in their index of Feature Reviews [60] and so I suspect it could be a user submitted review rather than vetted by the site publisher. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely at home with discarding a source on the suspicion it might be WP:UGC absent any evidence. Suggest perhaps asking WP:RS/N. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haukurth, what about The Big Issue, does it add any WP:N? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I'd say it's a source similar in quality to the Stars and Stripes article but shorter and with less on Williamson in particular. Apart from the little paragraph I've already added to the MZW article there probably isn't a lot here we could use. Well, it does mention "the Freehold series, which has gone from strength to strength" which we could maybe use at some point but I think it might be a bit WP:UNDUE to add that quote to the article as it is. Ideally we'd summarize several reviews and other sources to build some sort of coherent, balanced, sourced text on the Freehold series. I've placed an order for the April 2004 issue of Locus which has a review of Freehold. I'm hoping that will be something substantial and analytical but who knows. Haukur (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher's Weekly does not qualify as a reliable source. Their stated purpose is to publish reviews (~9000 per year by their estimation). This 'interview' is a primary source (with an interest) and would not be valid for notability even if more than two sentences on the page's subject were provided. So this fails WP:SPIP as well as WP:SIGCOV. I don't think the site should ever contribute to notability discussions.
SF Site reviews are essentially jacket blurbs. I am surprised to see this considered as significant coverage.
Stars and Stripes may be RS or not. I can't find much discussion of it either way although I do have concerns about independence. But this specific article is a primary source and cannot be used to confer notability but that would not prohibit it as a source of content.
Finally, the author of the Galveston News piece is a freelance writer, so I don't believe that piece can determine notability although it was a good read.
Coverage should be significant, independent, sustained, and not questionable, especially for a BLP. So far I've looked at five articles provided in this discussion and none meet those criteria. ogenstein (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a few more cites that might be useful, which I don't think have been mentioned yet. I stole them from another blog that's commenting on this topic. I'm too lazy to add them to the article myself, and I don't know the consensus on whether or not these count as reliable sources. Tour of Duty at PW; The Year's Best Military Science Fiction and Space Opera at PW; Forged in Blood at California Bookwatch. Plus a couple that I didn't immediately find web pages for: Guran, Paula. “Baen Books: Mining Military Might.” Publishers Weekly Vol. 251, No. 14 (April 5, 2004): p. 31 -- Fox, Rose. “Backward in Time. Science Fiction and Fantasy Recommended Readings.” Publishers Weekly Jan 26, 2015, Vol. 262, No. 4 (January 26, 2015): pp. 64-70 -- -- “Fiction Reviews.” Publishers Weekly Vol. 263, No. 23 (June 6, 2016) -- Daniel, Alex. “The Real Worlds: New Speculative Fiction Shines a Light on the Present. Science Fiction & Fantasy Recommended readings.” Publishers Weekly Vol. 263. No. 43 (October 24, 2016): pp. 26-33.Amazondoc (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the sorts of entries that make PW and similar proposed sources suspect, because they are merely promotional-copy material listings that a book exists, without a byline. The last one you listed is literally just two sentences along with price and publisher information. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - It's not going to be me but it seems like there ought to be enough on this author for an editor to establish notability. As the article stands though? Not seeing it.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Citing sources (easily found with just a bare effort, removing just the book selling ones):[1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.baen.com/allbooks/category/index/id/1963 with 9 independent referenced books and more collab or further mixes, followed by https://www.baen.com/allbooks/authors with specifics; http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/williamson_michael_z ; http://file770.com/tag/michael-z-williamson/ ; http://www.sharppointythings.com/ ; https://www.simonandschuster.com/series/Freehold; https://www.dragoncon.org/?q=guest_details_page%2F2025 ; https://letsjusttalkradio.com/tag/michael-z-williamson/ ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA0M10ZQvxY ; https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Michael_Z._Williamson.html ; https://www.globalnewsmakerfocus.com/michael-z-williamson; https://kgraradio.com/2017/11/02/global-newsmaker-focus-welcomes-michael-z-williamson/; https://www.military-history.us/2015/09/book-review-a-long-time-until-now-by-michael-z-williamson/; http://www.conglomeration.info/2016/02/announcing-the-conglomeration-2016-featured-author-michael-z-williamson.html ; https://www.scaryyankeechick.com/2011/06/13/michael-z-williamson/; http://anthony-pacheco.com/2014/03/11/signed-hardcover-edition-of-michael-z-williamsons-freehold-on-amazon/
Sure, but the discussion on this page is not about "Can we find weblinks with Michael Z. Williamson's name in them?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Most of those links do not post to WP:RS for instance: publisher websites and blogs don't confer notability. Again, referring to my own circumstances as an author, I have multiple reviews of my book on blogs. That doesn't make me a notable author. My publisher talks about my book on their website. That also doesn't make me a notable author. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I still think, based on the reflist I posted further up that Williamson is a weak keep, per my original !vote. My comment above is primarily for the education of new-to-AfD accounts who have popped up here WRT what constitutes a reliable source for establishing notability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage, what has been cited are primary sources and passing mentions. The fanboy cult is problematic (the "is every bit as notable an author as Robert Heinlein" is quite cringe-worthy), but ultimately has no bearing on the merits of the article, for or against. Zaathras (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You claim not notable, yet he is notable enough to have a "fanboy cult", which from my experience, only happens to the notable writers. Since when is the Guardian, and Stars and Stripes not reliable sources? 65.96.53.130 (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Justifications given for deletion weak. Author is obviously quite notable based on publications, awards, bestseller status. desmay (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I am generally hated by most of the people he admires most, and vice versa; but he does have a reputation in his circle of militaristic SF. The sources are not the strongest, but he does have his admirers. And any assholery he may have committed on any social media accounts is simply irrelevant. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I can see there is controversy, but his recent novel just won the Dragon award, I added that and a citation to the page, and certainly, while it is clear from the comments above that there are people who don't care for his work, he's certainly a notable author 18:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodkinnison5 (talk • contribs)
See below by Schazjmd, he did not win the Dragon Award. You may want to reconsider on that basis. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep - As this is only one of several right-wing authors simultaneously being targeted for deletion on Wikipedia, I suspect this is a concerted effort by a fringe left-wing group. WIkipedia should not allow this digital terrorism to stand. Leave this page, and the pages of many others alone. The excuse of "too many primary sources" is bogus. Is what is stated true or not. If you cannot prove it to be false, leave it be. I have been trying to add another SF/F author, Richard Paolinelli, to wikipedia. I have several secondary souces - INCLUDING a Wikipedia Article - and yet, I cannot get the page approved and moved out of drafts - even though every word in it is verified. Stop the political games. Wikipedia shoul be the free flow of information. Not the last bastion for the *rightthinkers* to expel the *wrongthinkers* into the wastelands. Leave these pages up and add Richard Paolinelli's ASAP!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:800:AA0:4848:40A4:84B4:B7BA (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep - Notability (people)#Any_biography says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" I would regard winning the Dragon Award, Compton Crook finalist, Hugo nomination, Prometheus award finalist is sufficient for Notability Any Biography, at which point the rest of this devolves not to a deletion question but a "go find better sources" conversation. Rick Boatright (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rboatright, he didn't win the Dragon award and he wasn't a finalist for the Prometheus award either, he was a Prometheus nominee who didn't make the final ballot and the Dragon award was to a different writer. Schazjmd (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schazjmd, doesn't matter. Mike is clearly well known enough to fit Any_biography. He has multiple nominations to "well-known and significant awards" -- it certainly doesn't matter if YOU think they're well-known, they are in the SF field, and that's enough. Keep. Rick Boatright (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the Dragon is not even at the same level as the Prometheus as far as notability is concerned; it's mostly given to Baen authors, Puppies and DragonCon regulars; though there are some people of good will involved, it's sort of seen as being intended as the right-wing equivalent of a Hugo. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Orangemike: Well, the Dragon Awards have only been awarded three times so far (the fourth time is later this year), so of course it's not yet at the level of the Prometheus Awards (which have been awarded since 1979 or 1980, I think). As for the awards going to "mostly...Baen authors, Puppies and DragonCon regulars", that's easily disproved by looking at the list of winners. Of the 24 awards given to winners in applicable categories (I only counted the novel categories, minus graphic novel), only 5 or 6 have any direct connection to Baen or Sad Puppies. It's a pretty wide variety of authors and publishers in that list. I've also seen DragonCon post about having to mail the award to people who didn't attend, so even that's hardly provable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Folks, Mr. Williamson has been regularly publishing commercial science fiction with a major publishing house for over a decade and a half, has been nominated for major awards (not without controversy BUT also not in violation of the rules that existed at the time, for better or worse) and has been an active member of science fiction's fandom for at least as long as he's been a published author. If he doesn't qualify as notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then you're going to have be deleting the articles of dozens of other science fiction authors of similar notability. Don't delete them, and don't delete Mr. Williamson's entry, either. On the basis of his work, he very well deserves inclusion on Wikipedia. Edit the article so it maintains Wikipedia standards, obviously. But let it stand. --Scalzi (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your charitable stance in this but I can't agree with the conclusion. I think each should stand on their own merits when it comes to determining whether a standards-compliant article can be written or not, if there are enough reliable sources to establish notability. I nominated one recently because none of the listed sources passed muster, and the early leaning (though I wonder about some of the posters being the same that were WP:CANVASsed to here) seems to be that the author will be found notable but that the article was in bad condition and needs a lot of work. One editor there suggested a "draftify" process. If that's the final conclusion, I'm completely fine with it. The thing here is to make an encyclopedic article that complies with the standards, or if we can't, then to admit that while the subject isn't notable today maybe it'll change later and leave the door open (though in this case we might also have to consider the vitriolic rant above from him demanding it be shut). 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, there's nothing charitable about my assessment of Mr. Williamson's notability. It's doubtful he'd want my assessment because as far as I know, he kind of hates my guts at the moment. Nevertheless, there's textual support for his notability as a writer, starting with his entry in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which in its print and online versions is a highly reputable source. His actual and substantial bibliography is not in dispute, nor is his Hugo nomination, in a category that has been deemed acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes in the articles of other science fiction authors (ask me how I know). Now, I do understand that as the former president of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, a New York Times bestseller and a three-time Hugo Award winner, including Best Novel, I may not be considered a good assessor of who is notable in the field that I've been working in actively for fifteen years. But to the extent that this track record is acceptable to you as sufficient perspective, I would say there's enough to Mr. Williamson's career to keep him in Wikipedia. --Scalzi (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, there is very, very little Scalzi and I agree about. He and I have had some rather memorable knock-down-drag-out flame wars in the past. But in this case, he speaks for me. In particular, his comment that "If he doesn't qualify as notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then you're going to have be deleting the articles of dozens of other science fiction authors of similar notability" is dead on target.
Fundamentally, this whole affair has done little more, for me, than show how thick-headed Wikipedians are when it comes to being called on their ignorance of any particular subject, and their insistence on applying rigid rules that simply don't fit the fields they purport to. WP:AUTHOR, by its own terms, is sufficient but not necessary to establish notability - and still there are those who insist that it must apply to authors of all kinds even when its terms are much more difficult for some to reach than others just by the nature of their work. If you're not willing to the expertise of someone who's obviously notable in that very same field, then you're dooming yourselves to being less than the best you can be. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Jay, it's not that some of us are unaware that Wikipedia has a WP:SYSTEMICBIAS it's just that some of us think there's more pressing arenas to fight back against it than the notability of a D-rate author of bad Mil-SF. Simonm223 (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Jay Maynard & Scalzi Not to mention this article as already survived another Afd in the past -- B.ellis (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a long established author who more than meets the criteria for an article here. I agree that more work is needed, and especially independent verifiable sources, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. SeaphotoTalk 05:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The third criteria of WP:AUTHOR says that an author is notable if that author has (a) created a well known work or body of work and (b) that work is the subject of multiple reviews. First, according to the Stars and Stripes article [61], Williamson's books yielded "a half million in sales and several bestsellers." Locus additionally confirms that at least one of his books, "Freehold", was a legitimate bestseller. [62] . Both Stars and Stripes and Locus are legitimate, credible sources, and the level of sales they describe establishes that his work is well-known. Furthermore, his work has been the subject of discussion and reviews from major genre fiction sites, including sfreviews.net [63], tor.com [64], and Tangent Online [65]. Williamson thus meets both criteria of the WP:AUTHOR standard. AaronCanton (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, unambiguously fails WP:AUTHOR. Based on the sourcing in the article, coverage of and attention to his work is extremely slim - Stars and Stripes is specifically highlighting him as much for being a veteran as for being an author; an author who was genuinely noteworthy would have more substantial reviews elsewhere. Note that a lot of the arguments above are making claims that are simply not sourced in the article - there is no indication that his work sold significantly at all (let alone "bestselling"), and no indication that it passes the requirement of WP:AUTHOR's third criteria, which requires that The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. The review requirements are in addition to this baseline criteria, not a substitute for it. Nothing in the sources remotely suggests that his work could be significent or well-known; indeed, the sparsity of reviews suggets quite the opposite. Note that his works have not won any awards (they were nominated, but, as the sources say, the nomination was tainted by ballot-stuffing; either way they did not win, making it irrelevant for WP:AUTHOR purposes.) Finally, while it might be obvious to belabor the point, note the extensive meatpuppetry above - large numbers of new accounts, or zombie accounts that have not edited in years suddenly reawakening to weigh in on this RFC; clearly, people are being directed here from outside the wiki. Also note the large numbers of !votes citing invalid criteria or things that don't remotely reflect the sources in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The current state of the article has no bearing on notability. Articles can be improved. Almond Plate (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." But the Afd is young yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD has two kids and probably a mortgage by now. But, yes, there are some days to go still. I've ordered an offline source but it will not arrive until after this is closed. Haukur (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then improve it, if after 3 days of an AFD an article is still in a state where users think it should be deleted the fault lies with those who want to keep it, but have made no effort to improve it. As that just looks like this is the best it is ever going to be.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a battle. Users that propose deletion, or didn't participate here at all, can equally improve the article. We all share the blame and the laurels. Almond Plate (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No its not a battle, but if we have looked and cannot find anything we think proves notability we cannot add it. Nor should we be expected to add sources we do not think pass muster.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further, WP:AUTHOR is not a list of requirements that need to be satisfied (we would have almost no authors left), but a list of examples (specific to authors) that help establish notability. The guideline lists other examples as well, like WP:ANYBIO. Almond Plate (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as I keep pointing out, WP:AUTHOR is not a set of requiremtns for an author to be notable by its own terms. (Don't believe me? Scroll up just a little to the section header above the text.) -- Jay Maynard (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's notable. Trying to delete a page for political reason isn't good. Wikipedia should cover good things and bad things. And neither left-wing or right-wing are bad. It's subjective. People should respect the others. Wikipedia editors are allowed to have political beliefs but when you're editing articles, you should be neutral. Ezio's Assassin (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:AUTHOR. See post by Aquillion above. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Content and POV disuptes aside, there is WP:SIGCOV now on the page: Stars and Stripes (newspaper) (INDEPENDENT unless there is evidence I'm not seeing that he was assigned to work on the paper,) Pub Weekly [66], profile in hometown paper The Advocate (Newark), and that PhD disseratation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Concur entirely. And (though this is a little inside baseball) when E.M.Gregory and I agree entirely about something it's generally good to check and make sure gravity is still switched on so... Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Reviews by the propaganda mouthpiece of your former employer are very very far from being independent. Likewise anyone who was nominated for a Hugo in 2015 does not make one notable, unless you are ignorant of the Sad Puppies Voting bloc scandal. Although you could attempt to claim some sort of inheirited notability from being part of an attempt to (unsuccessfully) rig the awards, I doubt the author wants that as his primary achievement. I have a huge Baen colletion, and own many fine books from Ringo, Drake & Weber (arguably the biggest three in his genre) and the reason they have plenty of sources available is due to them a)actually being competent authors and gaining positive reviews, b)being *successful* authors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reminder that Stars & Stripes is editorially independent AND that Williamson was not assigned to work at or write for Stars & Strips during his years in the service.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have WP:RS coverage in multiple publications of his life and work: bestseller lists, large numbers of books sold, book reviews. In addition he meets WP:BASIC. I admit to not being familiar with this genre or with the scandal you refer to, but this writer clearly meets WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you define "successful"? He makes a living and supports his family doing it, which is all the success any author can reasonably expect. And, as E.M.Gregory points out, Stars and Stripes is editorially independent, and rather fiercely so. It is about as far from a propaganda mouthpiece as you can get. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • re: "He makes a living and supports his family doing it" -- In one of his statements -- I'm not going to go find it right now -- he states that he actually supports himself by making, selling, and sharpening cutlery. Nonetheless, I still believe he's notable enough to warrant a "keep". Amazondoc (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He and a number of his fans have behaved badly in this thread, and I'm not a fan of his work either, but he's a reasonably prominent SF author, and meets criterion 3 of WP:AUTHOR. For "significant or well-known work" you can look at his library holdings: His solo-authored _Contact With Chaos_ is held by 174 libraries in WorldCat, his first-authored _The Weapon_ (with Kurt Miller) is held by 184 libraries, and his second-authored _The Hero_ (with John Ringo as first author) is held by 360. You don't get that many libraries holding works that aren't well-known. Regarding "multiple independent periodical articles and reviews", his work has been reviewed in multiple well-known publications (a Summon search turns up multiple reviews in Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, various Bookwatch publications of the Midwest Book Review, and others; and as noted above he also has a Science Fiction Encyclopedia entry. Under normal circumstances (and I realize that the circumstances here have gotten a lot of people annoyed) I wouldn't see this as being a controversial notability call. JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not my kind of Science Fiction, but definitely notable. The deletion attempt seems politically motivated. Wikipedia does not need this kind of drama.DavidHobby (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm not a fan of his, but clearly he's a notable science fiction author. Over the last decade I've seen different books by him in the science fiction section of bookstores on many occasions. Not every author is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, but any author who can consistently stay on the bookshelves for more than a decade spanning many different novels and series is notable. Rob (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

  • Delete as it's not notable and no strong reliable source available WilmA.OliveR (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A long-time author with multiple accolades. JudgeDeadd (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Canvassing, POV, and content issues aside - our subject passes GNG and NAUTHOR. the POV issues in the article can be rectified by stubbing it down if need be.Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking through the sources, there don't appear to be any that pass the Wikipedia trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary. Most of them seem to be recycled press releases, the balance more like directories. There's no evidence of substantive independent writing about the person that I can see, which is a big problem for a contentious BLP. The more contentious a BLP is, the better sources we need to make sure it's verifiably neutral. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that WP:AUTHOR does not require "substantive independent writing about the person" (although we do have some in this case,) what WP:AUTHOR requires that the work be notable. We have many articles about anonymous novelists, poets, playwrights.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason this BLP is contentious is that someone with a political axe to grind resurrected a 10-year-old AfD and convinced folks it needed revisiting. This is the same kind of logical fallacy as shooting your parents and then complaining about being an orphan. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Successful Traditionally published author with multiple reliable sources including at least two Publishers Weekly reviews, a Stars and Stripes publication, Has had works published by both Baen and Simon & Schuster, Multiple listings in Locus Mag Best Sellers lists, IMDb listing, and several newspaper reviews.B.ellis (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that B.ellis (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    • Comment I’d suggest addressing my comments, looking at the references in the current article, and a TOUCH of WP:GF my dear chap, rather than accusing me of WP:CANVAS. I still follow Afd from time to time but rarely comment these days because it’s become untenable. The author discussed has sold well over a million books, and has been featured in WSJ as a top ten SciFi seller (data supporting that derived via Nielsen Bookscan, 100k units sold on on the one book referenced in the Publishers Weekly article.) This alone is entirely sufficient to establish WP:AUTHOR and WP:NOTABLE amongst other things. The supporting WP:REF is in the article already. B.ellis (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any source for him having "sold well over a million books"? Because if he has, it would be a remarkable increase in sales over the past couple of years considering that he only sold half a million books during the 14 years from 2002 to 2016. And no, his notability has not been established. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 07:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right. You say he's sold half million books, and in the very next sentence that he's not notable? Any criterion that says an author with that many sales isn't notable is outright ludcirous. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't seen any verification that he's sold half a million. Do you have any sources for that assertion -- sources aside from Williamson's own claims, that is? For comparison, NK Jemisin has sold over a million -- and I can verify that with a publisher's press release at the very least. But for Williamson I don't see anything aside from his own claims (that Stars and Stripes article is just an interview with him -- not independent verification). Is there anything else?Amazondoc (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amazondoc The Stars and Stripes article is WP:SIGCOV in a reputable publication. What basis do you have for asserting that Stars and Stripes would publish an signed piece of journalism offering facts like the number of years a man served wihtout fact checking? Of course journalist interview the subjec tthey are writing about, but they also verify facts. On what basis are you making this assertion?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only base my comment on the fact that Stars and Stripes offers no sourcing at all -- no citations, no in-article reference to where they got the number, nothing. We have seen Williamson claim that number of sales multiple times, but there has been no independent verification at all.Amazondoc (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: This is what everybody in SF/F publishing had to put up with daily everywhere during the Sad Puppies fiasco. It seems to me that there have been an influx of newbies to Wikipedia who are either Sad Puppy fans upset their friends are being treated as insignificant, or they're anti-Sad Puppy fans who are here to keep up The Fight. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies both directions of course. But seriously. You think this is bad? You've seen nothing. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I voted to KEEP this article. I just dislike seeing unverified claims repeated as though they were established facts.Amazondoc (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update on sources. I've been in contact with some old guard sci-fi folks to gather material and it is paying off. Joseph T. Major (who was twice Hugo nominated himself) has kindly provided me with some fanzine material. So now I can tell you that Timothy Lane published reviews of at least five Williamson novels in FOSFAX (Freehold in FOSFAX #209, The Scope of Justice in FOSFAX #210, Targets of Opportunity in FOSFAX #212, Confirmed Kill in FOSFAX #213, The Weapon in FOSFAX #213). Joe has sent me the text of the last two and they are lengthy reviews of decent quality. I think FOSFAX (seven Hugo nominations for best fanzine) is a credible publication for sci-fi reviews. This isn't the New York Times but I'd say it helps make the case for 'sustained critical attention' in the field. Haukur (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fanzines are generally not seen as reliable sources, so ask at WP:RSN first, before adding it to the article. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy to discuss it there (I already started one thread over there) and I hope you join in the discussion but I will say that we are kind of shooting ourselves in the foot if we end up throwing out all this nuanced and detailed nerd stuff as "unreliable" (it's opinion! by established figures in the field!) and end up with the Galveston Daily News as our go-to source for the critical reception of Williamson's work. Galveston Daily News is a publication which pays sustained attention to Williamson's books and, spoiler alert, Mark Lardas of the Galveston Daily News loves every Williamson book he can get his hands on. The other traditional printed sources are also exclusively positive as far as I can see. After all this effort it would be amusing to end up with a gushing hagiography but if that's where policy leads us I will of course abide by it. Haukur (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My attempt to keep track of known Williamson reviews is here: User:Haukurth/sandbox4. Some of those may turn out to be useless but I'm only including reviews where there is at least some sort of case to be made, not "guy no-one has heard of with a blog" stuff. Haukur (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added to the list a review by Don Sakers in the November 2015 issue of Analog Science Fiction & Fact which I wasn't aware of until now. It's a review of Williamson's solo novel A Long Time until Now. I've placed an order for this back issue. I'm also waiting for Locus April 2004 to come in by slow boat. The article has by no means reached its full potential. More sources are coming in and we are far from making full use of the sources we already have. Haukur (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why aren't they? SF fans use them reliably as guides to what to read and what not to, just as book reviews in newspapers are used in other genres. A fanzine doesn't get seven Hugos without being a good, solid source of information. I've been threatened with a ban for my comments here, so I'll just say that that standard reflects a profound ignorance of the field of SF in general - just like most of this discussion. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia doesn't care what fans do, but has own very strict rules regarding what is and what isn't a reliable source, see WP:RS. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fans are not lesser folk. A fanzine, like any other magazine, is a reliable source when it has a reputation for fact-checking. Almond Plate (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "fans being lesser folk". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fanblog or a fanzine, so unlike in a fanzine or on a fanblog each and every article here, regardless of if it's about medicine, a country, a political party or a sciencefiction writer, has to be sourced to reliable sources, not some totally unknown persons own opinions. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are equally not lesser, unreliable folk because you, Tom, don't know them. Almond Plate (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what the rules here say, period, and AfDs aren't majority votes based on peoples' personal opinions about an author or whatever, but based only on policy, period. Whether you like it or not. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nor am I lesser folk because my opinion differs from yours. I don't know this author and haven't read any of his works. According to the rules, however, this looks like a reliable source to me. Almond Plate (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fanzines are not considered reliable sources because they generally lack strong editorial oversight - i.e. they don't have a professional board of editors responsible for vetting content and issuing retractions if they do publish something incorrect or unacceptable. It doesn't much matter how respected or influential the 'zine is. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you're going to insist on holding SF to one-size-fits-all rules that, if consistently applied, would strip out half of the SF authors in Wikipedia. Real useful, that. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adiitional source - FWIW, a live interview with him ([67]) about his new (at the time) book, conducted by WOCA "The Source" (The station's website links to that YouTube account, too.) on 16 Oct 2017. Bob the Cannibal (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that is useful for verifying what he's said, interviews don't help for notability because they aren't third-party. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the reasons stated by John Scalzi above. Frankly, notability is so well established that it is embarrassing that this discussion is even happening, and can only be understood if there is a political motivation behind it. The SF Encyclopedia entry alone should be more than enough. Db105 (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Z._Williamson_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1077705617"