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

Michael Z. Williamson

AfDs for this article:

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

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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)

• 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.

• 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)
  • Then source it, the references in the article shows nothing of this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• 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. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC) — Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• 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)
• 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.
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

• 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)
  • I wasn't going to mention it, but I would suspect there is Astro-Turfing, nevermind canvassing. Koncorde (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• Delete notability not established. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • WP:BASIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
        • For someone who complains about casting aspersions, that was awfully condescending. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
          • 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)
            • 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)
              • 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)
                • 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)
  • 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)
• 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.
  • 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)
    • Obvious illegal WP:CANVASsed edit: [1] "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 [2]

"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)
• 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)
• 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.
  • 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)
• Does anybody know where the canvassing is going on? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • @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)
    • @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)
        • • 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.
        • @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)
          • @Doug Weller: Ding. You've got mail. We can continue that thread there. DBalling (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• • • • • • • 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)

• STRONG DELETE and Reply to @Roxy the dog:: The author put out a call to his "fans" at [3] and then referred to the deleting admin as "this pha66otte" ([4]) to encourage his toxic followers to engage in harassment.
  1. Then he directed his fans to try to re-create it: [5]
  2. Then he called for several specific meatpuppets/sockpuppets to come here [6] "People who have contributed include Jamie Ibson, Desiree Arceneaux,", "Oh, and Jason Cordova".
  3. Then the following was posted [7] :

  "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 [8] "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" [9] to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law, followed with [10] "Thus proving that socialists are hypocritical, delusional shitheads who can even lie to themselves."
  3. A particular set of sockpuppeters, it appears: [11]

  "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 [12] "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 [13], "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 [14] "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."
• 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 🙂" [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • 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)
• 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)
  • Wow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • BowWow. Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • 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. [16], specific diff link [17]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
      • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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 [18] "David Todd Who is graberg?", [19] "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)
• 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)
  • 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." [20]

"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." [21]

Followed immediately by their posting the direct link to this discussion: [22]

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." [23]

Followed by: "Mike Willis Clearly a retaliation removal for a personal disagreement with you, Michael Z Williamson" [24]

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."[25]

Followed by admission of WP:OWN entanglements by the subject:

"Nolan Tomlinson How did you find out what was happening?"[26]

"Michael Z. Williamson I got pinged by someone who follows the page."[27]

• 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)
• 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)
• Strong delete - Appears more like spam than an article, highly promotional. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - would explain further, but 'edit conflicts' are frustrating me. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • Yes, IMDB is not a reliable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

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"(), log in and sign your comments. Bob the Cannibal (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• 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. [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It makes no difference, IMDb isn't usable for notability purposes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • I have occasionally, very rarely, semi-protected an AFD discussion. This discussion has not reached the problem level to warrant that, in my view, and I don't want to exclude the rare newbie who might come along and actually address Wikipedia:verifiability, Wikipedia:independent sources, Wikipedia:notability, Wikipedia:reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Uncle G (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete 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)
• Strong Keep Well known author and winner of Baen's 2014 Best Military and Adventure SF Reader's Choice Award [29] KLoWnTaZ (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC) — KLoWnTaZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)

Also, looks like another sockpuppet [30]. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment- Also a winner of Bean's The Year's Best Military & Adventure SF 2015 [31] KLoWnTaZ (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment- Michael Z Williamson was also a Prometheus Award nominee in 2006 [32]KLoWnTaZ (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)