Deletion of Michael Z. Williamson (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR)

Comment: Content and POV disuptes aside, there is  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 https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/new-titles/adult-announcements/article/71837-authenticity-counts-science-fiction-fantasy-2016-2017.html, profile in hometown paper The Advocate (Newark), and that PhD disseratation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Sadly I have to report another set of commentary on his  link that's looking like doxxing or threatening: https://www.facebook.com/michaelz.williamson.14/posts/173317723704913?comment_id=173427150360637&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVAS)

Comment: fails . See post by ''Aquillion'' above. -&nbsp;'''Tom'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: And where is the  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: It seems likely that there is some sort of anvassing or other going on
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: The third criteria of  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 https://www.stripes.com/former-troops-building-second-careers-in-military-science-fiction-1.417224#.WT5fwuvyvcs, 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. https://www.locusmag.com/2004/Issues/04LocusBestsellers.html . 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 http://www.sfreviews.net/freehold.html, tor.com https://www.tor.com/2013/07/31/fiction-affliction-genre-benders-for-august/, and Tangent Online https://www.tangentonline.com/print--other-reviewsmenu-263/anthologies-reviewsmenu-107/3634-forged-in-blood-ed-by-michael-z-williamson. Williamson thus meets both criteria of the  standard
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: unambiguously fails .  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 's third criteria, which requires that {{tq|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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: how does he meet ? 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. {{re|Ssmock|Rumplestiltskin1992|Dballing|Ibson.writes|Fly46|TheMeanEngineer }} can you give us guideline based reasons? Thanks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: does not meet . There isn't significant independent coverage of the books, much less evidence of the kind of impact the notability guideline describes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: There's just enough here from third-party sources to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: The subject has an http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/williamson_michael_z entry in ''The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction'' which is an excellent reference work for the genre.  The subject passes  and so the following policies apply: , ,  and , indicating that we should not delete the page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO||WP:ATD||WP:CENSOR||WP:NPOV||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: There is no  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: I’d suggest addressing my comments, looking at the references in the current article, and a TOUCH of  my dear chap, rather than accusing me of . 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  and  amongst other things. The supporting  is in the article already
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:GF||WP:CANVAS||WP:AUTHOR||WP:NOTABLE||WP:REF)