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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion is unnecessary and unwarranted

A professional author with over ten books from major publishers is most certainly not irrelevant. This call for deletion seems based on something other than legitimate reasons. UndeadDan (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If someone doesn’t enjoy his books that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean that I or anyone else can’t, and finding information about things including people and their work is kind of what Wiki is all about. Fgirld (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you please read over the actual policies and guidelines cited as rationales for deletion (namely Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Significant coverage) before spouting nonsense accusations based on "I like it" and "I don't like it" situations. And keep the deletion discussion in the actual project page: this talk page is not the correct avenue for it. --letcreate123 (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And just for clarification; nobody's claiming that the article subject is irrelevant; the main point of discussion is on whether or not this person meets the notability guidelines. It is not to be confused with relevance or significance. --letcreate123 (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:n and WP:NOT.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read the guidelines, thanks. An author with a major publisher with a significant body of work and a large and loyal fan base is pretty much the definition of notable. UndeadDan (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you just said is true, though.--Jorm (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The facts, then, are these:

1. Williamson has written numerous novels (14 by my count) and short stories.

2. Almost all of these were published by Baen, a division of Simon and Schuster.

3. Williamson is a Hugo Award nominee.

This makes him at least the equivalent of a Max Gladstone or V.E. Schwab before we get to other details of his biography.

Aside from his politics, what is the specific case for removal of this article in comparison to examples like the above two? Jdb1972 (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as whether this is the correct page to discuss the deletion or not, the fine folks who wrote the deletion notice page certainly feel that it is. UndeadDan (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read over the policies/guidelines I linked above? And I don't recall the AfD notice or anyone at the AfD ever saying that further discussion should be taken to this talk page. If it's discussion about improvement of the article itself, it should be taken to the subject article's talk page, not here. --letcreate123 (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time, I read them.

And the directive to discuss it here is from the Wikipedia deletion notice page. I’d post a screenshot if possible. UndeadDan (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is getting outright tiresome but could you please restrict deletion discussion to the project page? Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's just been protected due to persistent disruption. Any IPs and non-confirmed accounts are welcome to make further comments in here. --letcreate123 (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Comment The WP:CANVAS behavior has continued unabated,[1] with Williamson making obscene attacks ("Prediction: The next author's page the dog-fellators at Wikipee will try to sabotage is Brad Torgersen.") and his followers now making up falsehoods ("Alicia Stockton That's in line with the hierarchy. They apparently tried to go after John Ringo's page yesterday with zero success."). This is something to be aware of. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC) 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Not relevant to this AfD. Almond Plate (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're hilarious declining this as one of Williamson's followers.^{[citation needed]}

Restoring this. Almond Plate has no right to decline this request.

Only the original requester can reactivate. However, if you feel strongly about their request, you can always make it again and someone else will respond. Be careful though because if your edits are seen as disruptive, you may get blocked. Please sign your comments. Almond Plate (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true.--Jorm (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

All of Jmaynard's comments should be tagged as — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. . He is here editing extensively on behalf of Banned user mzmadmike as shown on Williamson's facebook posts and in the Freehold facebook group. 38.127.1.29 (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC) ^{[citation needed]}[reply]

Declined If and only if you have evidence that someone is editing on behalf of a banned user, canvassed or not, the way to proceed is to ask for an investigation. Almond Plate (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the place to do that is WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:Sockpuppet investigations, not here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.