Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Aquillion, 11:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTHOR (Wikipedia:Notability)