Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J Williams


 * 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. The discussion has gone back and forth, without one side's arguments being significantly stronger. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

David J Williams

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable author; does not meet the standards of WP:CREATIVE  Chzz  ►  01:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep This is, in fact, a notable author, with a trilogy published by a major house (Bantam Spectra, for what was claimed to be a record sum advance for a debut novelist) and is notable enough for former Hugo award nominees to call out the author as having brought a special talent to the Sci-Fi genre. He also has Homeworld gaming credit.Bdegroodt (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Even though, the article on Homeworld doesn't list the reviews or articles, it's safe to assume they exist since the game won multiple awards. I consider creating the story concept of a game a major role in co-creating such a game. - Mgm|(talk) 10:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- kelapstick (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- kelapstick (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * delete Claims to notability must be backed with non-trivial sources. I have searched for 30 min or so for articles, book mentions, and web coverage that meets the non-trivial requirement but have only found a single reference in reuters, which is a press release and can not by itself establish notability, and a short blurb on MonstersandCritics.com . If any editors can provide additional covereage, I would happily change my vote, but as it stands, a credit for a video game (with no sources giving verifiable info) and a publishing contract do not provide verifiable content to be placed in an article. Mrathel (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A.) Notability or non-notability is and is always purely subjective and there for is not verifiable by any empirical means. This being the case this whole discussion is off base, unwarranted and seemingly a malicious attempt to defame an author for no other reason than the initial individual does not seem to enjoy the authors work.  B.) References: Nisi Shawl - Seattle Times, "Mirrored Heavens" cleaves closely enough to the cyberpunk canon to be clearly identified with it, while departing from it sharply enough to refresh and renew its source.  / RANDOM HOUSE  / io9.com  - "Secrets Of Great Characters, According To 6 Science Fiction Authors"    C.) If author David J. Williams was so "non-notable" why does every major retailer of books carry his work?  Amazon.com  Barnes & Nobles   Borders   D.) The definition of "notable" is "worthy of note or notice; noteworthy" and the simple fact that someone took there own time out of their own valition to track down author David J. Williams and make the comment they did clearly shows David is indeed notable, ironically that proof is given by the same one whom claimed otherwise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.188.9 (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * reply I encourage you to read wp:notability (people) for the answer to the majority of your questions. The reason for notability requirements is to make sure that article content is able to be verified. I would like very much to see this article remain, and I actually took the time to do the search because I was inclined to believe I would find more than I did. The Seattle times article is a good source of content and goes towards helping to give content for the article, but I encourage you not to make accusations or claim comments to be a "malicious attempt to defame an author for no other reason than the initial individual does not seem to enjoy the authors work". I would like very much for the article to be kept, but not unless the content comes from reliable sources. Mrathel (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: reply Reading the above link to the Wikipedia guidelines again only affirms my initial points, and the mere fact the books are published by Random House one of the largest publishers in the world by this sites own guidelines makes David J. Williams as an author "notable". As far as making accusations or claims, where was this ideal when the initial user posted their opinion???  Please if you are going to enforce ideals make sure you do it all around the table not just pose it to one individual.  As well the Seattle Times article and the io9.com article easily ascert and follow the Wikipedia guidlines of "notability (people)" so this discussion should be ended and the article should remain, but if for some reason those do not here are some more to add to them: Richard Dransky - GreenManReview.com  / FantasyBookCritic  / FantasyHotList  / SFsite.com  / Scifi.com     I found all of those in less than 5 minutes of a search.  If these are not "reliable sources" then please link to the guidelines for what Wikipedia considers reliable sources and I shall inundate you with those further.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.149.210 (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * reply: The mere publishing of a work by the most famous of publishing houses does not meet the requirements. Of the sources you listed, those that were written in blogs by authors whose work is not widely recognized do not meet WP:V, and the only one I would count as being "non-trivial" is the Sci-fi weekly. Also, try reading the general WP:notabilityand WP:Reliable sources if you have questions about source value. Mrathel (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * RE:reply Once again your subjectivity is out of hand, SFsite.com has been online since 1996 that is 5 years before even Wikipedia came about, if you consider them an unreliable source or "trivial" than in the same sense so is Wikipedia. As well Richard Dansky from GreenManReview.com is a published author and video game writer whom was featured as GamaSutura.com's 20 Top Game Writers for his writing work on games such as Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six and Cold Fear... is he trivial?  By Wiki guidelines for self published sources (which GreenManReview is not self published by Richard anyway) Richard works in a relevant field and has been published by a reliable 3rd party source.  Further sources:  Student Operated Press  / io9.com  / SFFworld.com  / FantasticFiction.co.uk  / GoodReads.com  / SFsignal.com   All of the prior are reliable sources most of them have been online long before even Wikipedia.  I can also go through and see on how many other Wikipedia articles these sources have been allowed as reliable if you need me to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.149.210 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Would like to state for the record that my intention was not to defame the author, but rather to support notability by calling out the fact that some have cited Williams' work as a new take on cyberpunk--or perhaps a sub-sub-genre--which in my opinion futhers the notability requirement. I took time to create this entry out of interest in the author and as a fan unable to find much material on Williams.  I thought Wikipedia would be a welcome repository for such an entry, but perhaps I've overvalued the respect for a published author on Wikipedia.  Notability feels highly subjective to me and I've tried to meet a reasonable standard for what I feel meets the vague guidlines of Wikipedia's Notability requirement.  I'd suggest, having studied the publishing industry, that any author that actually makes it out of the pile of manuscripts that bombard agents and publishers is by definition notable.  I'll reiterate, as creator of this entry, my vote to keep this entry.Bdegroodt (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Links provided establish notability but should be integrated into article in reference format, with expansion and additional material available. Alansohn (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, the Seattle Times book review looks like the only reliable source listed in the deletion nomination or the article, and it's about the book with only one biographical sentence about the author: his nation of birth and current residence. The author doesn't seem to qualify as notable enough for an encyclopedia biography yet. If anyone finds other sources that qualify, please add them to the article. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-14t21:43z
 * Reply Please denote exactly why the Seattle Times review is the only reliable source and why the others (Scifi.com especially) are not, I have read all Wikipedia standards posted (which are not clear and leave a lot of room for interpretation) and it would seem 80% of the sources I posted CAN INDEED be accepted and with that I am confused to why there seems to be such an adamant refusal to allow them (which is odd if not unsettling). If you could please be very specific as to why EACH ONE is not a reliable source it would indeed help to clarify this whole debacle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.188.9 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Article:
 * personal page, 404
 * image of a book cover, ad
 * "A lifelong SF fan, well, at least as far back as he can remember, he decided it would be cool to start a weblog about SF and stuff. So, together with a few friends, he did, and SF Signal was born!"
 * publisher's page, ad
 * "The ISFDB is a community effort to catalog works of science fiction, fantasy, and horror." The bio link is a wiki page, 404.
 * In AfD, but not in the article:
 * electrifying, masterful advertorial
 * Seattle Times book review, the only encyclopedically "reliable, third-party, published [source] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but it's a review of the book, the only biographical info on the author is his nation of birth and current residence
 * publisher's page, ad
 * blog, isn't loading for me
 * ,, a book being for sale does not make the author encyclopedically notable, especially not if the book is ranked 441,058.
 * collection of reviews emailed in?
 * blog
 * blog
 * webzine
 * "THE WORLD’S #1 SOURCE FOR NEWS, REVIEWS, AND INTERVIEWS"
 * -- Jeandré, 2009-05-18t22:02z
 * ReplyI too would be after similar data. I'm certain the editorial process for inclusion of Williams' work at the ST was rigorous and objective.  Dismissing a major print publication out of hand as not sufficient enough to carry a vote for notability seems subjective and lacking in rigor.  How about Publisher's Weekly?  This is a very important source for librarians across the nation in making buy/pass decisions.  A review there seems, again, to pass a reasonable notability threshold.Bdegroodt (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you responding to what I wrote about the Seattle Times?
 * The single paragraph book review in the trade news magazine doesn't have anything biographical in it. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-18t22:02z


 * The behaviour in this afd is so wrong. Accusations of defamation with no basis in fact, claims of dismissing publications were that did not happen. Bdegroodt should get his/her facts right before making accusations. As should all these anonymous IP particpants (76.79.188.9, I'm looking at you) (I ask my feet where they came from). Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Duffbeerforme once again this is not about opinions, both myself and Bdegroodt ARE THE ONLY ONES who have brought forth proper evidence to support our cases and every other nay sayer has simply returned nothing but rhetoric, no facts, no objectivity, nothing. You are 100% right this afd is wrong.  It should have never been started as even by Wikipedia standards it is clear David Williams is indeed a notable author.  My accusations ARE based on the actions of the initial claim that was made without any substance to it and I have clearly proven beyond a reasonable doubt my case and the ones (like yourself, Jeandre, Mrathel, Chzz) have done nothing to prove your initial claim of "non-notability" but are clinging to it with no factual basis hence the accusations of malintent.  Yes that is an assumption but so was the initial claim to David Williams being "non-notable".  Also Duffbeerforme, what was your purpose for posting in here???  You brought absolutely nothing to this debate and I am still waiting for someone to clearly denote why the sources provided are either not reliable or trivial specifically.  Id est, list the outlet and exactly why Wikipedia finds them to be either non-reliable or trivial.  This is now the third time I have asked for this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.188.9 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Duffbeerforme, I've made no accusations of defamation. If I have, I'd appreciate proof and I'll gladly correct my intended message.  Otherwise, I'm uncertain what your vote is for keep/delete.  Can I assume it's keep?  I believe the guideline for participation in this AfD page is for consensus building only.  Without an explicit vote from you it's difficult to count your position.  Your a digital hanging chad if you will.  I'll reiterate my call for this entry to be kept in Wikipedia and if documentation/references are not sufficient that the entry be moved to a request to increase them and the entry "cleaned up" to meet Wikipedia standards--but not marked for deletion.Bdegroodt (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * my feet would feel much more comfortable if I put on some socks. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I would like to respectfully request the Wiki Admins take Duffbeerforme's responses as limited to no value for the sake of this discussion. References to his feet, comfort and socks are in no way related to this discussion.Bdegroodt (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Links provided establish notability; all of the sites mentioned establish credibility within the genre/community and/or within the publishing industry. He specifically meets the criteria set per the specifications that were questioned; he now has two books published by a major publisher - "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work" - he meets the criteria.
 * Neutral hi - Dave Williams (the author) here; some fans alerted me this conversation was going on. I certainly appreciate everybody's efforts on both sides of the fence--I've no idea whether I'm notable enough, I leave that to you guys to determine!  I will say, though, that there does seem like some grey area here as to how much attention one's book needs to have achieved in the market to merit Wikipedia inclusion, and perhaps this discussion thread will spur the clarification of those standards.  (Most of the sources cited are well known within the SF industry, and less known outside of it.)  As to relevant sources re Homeworld:  my story concept credit is listed on the MobyGames database; the game itself won PC Gamer's Game of the Year for 1999; and my story concept/co-writing credit won Eurogamer's story of the year award.  Here are the links:   http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,5823/; http://www.answers.com/topic/homeworld-game-of-the-year-edition; http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gg2000_2  I apologize in that I realize this isn't standard format; I'm new to Wikipedia, but someone more adept than me at this is welcome to use the sources for footnotes as needed. Again, I take no position on whether or not this qualifies as notability; that's for everyone here to decide.  Thanks a ton for your time!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.5.236 (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I thank Jeandré for the list of sources he has provided. As you can see, there is a lack of information from reliable, third-party sources from which an article can be written on the subject. Despite claims of subjectivity in dealing with the notability issues, the guidelines are quite clear on the matter; in order for an encyclopedic article to be written on a subject, there must be reliable, third-party sources to back up the claims the article makes. If a blog where only a username is given is used, there is no way to verify that content to make sure the person giving it did his or her homework on the matter. Of the sources that meet this criteria, (Seattle Times and Scifi.com), there is not enough biographical information to put together an article on the author. This is in no way a critical judgement of the author's work or value; it is simply an issue of coverage. In the future, more publications by credible sources can be used to fill in the gaps that exist, but at present, I don't think one can find enough reliable sources to meet the requirement of notability. Mrathel (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I disagree. Much of the commentary on each source made by Jeandré is poorly recapped or lazily researched.  The author is now a twice published American author of science fiction at a major publishing house.  His book is currently in the low thousand for Amazon sales rank (as if this can be any sort of reliable source of an author's value/notoriety, but I'll play along).  I'll continue to make my request that this article be marked for clean up, but not deletion.  Deletion is not the only potential solution here. Bdegroodt (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - vaguely familiar name in SF world. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.