Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. I thank those few that participated constructively, but the rest of this AfD was a complete joke.  Grsz  11  05:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Z. Williamson

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

Non-notable author with little or no third-party coverage. Also nominating his non-notable books.  Grsz  11  17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Freehold (novel)
 * Freehold War
 * 'Keep the author Multiple books in hundreds of worldcat libraries, published by the major publishers in his subject.  We need to look, but there are probably reviews for all or most of them. I see a few in Google News Archive, but not all of them are really independent, substantial, and from RSs.  As for Freehold, it seems like The hero by John Ringo &  Michael Z Williamson, 2004 is is book most widely held in libraries. For Freehold, and Freehold war it would depend entirely on the reviews. If borderline, merge the novel into the article for series. . DGG (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't like Michael Z. Williamson, I think he's a right wing reactionary nut... but I know who he is despite the fact that I am only vaguely involved with the survivalist movement (which he is very involved in) and don't read his books (I did however discover one of them in my basement last night purely by chance... it wasn't very good as I recall). Like I said, not my cup of tea but absolutely notable enough to justify an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic11 (talk • contribs) - — Logic11 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Keep -  It is absurd to delete this biography as "non-notable".  Clearly,  Williamson is a quite notable and well-established sci-fi writer with 10+ books in print.  His books are hardly the marginal vanity house titles that usually inspire  "nn" AFDs -- rather they have been published by DAW, TOR Books, and Avon Books--all big name publishers.    His books have collectively had hundreds of reviews on Amazon, and most have 4 and 5 star ratings.  (See:  http://www.amazon.com)   What standard of notability are you applying, Mr.  "Grsz"?  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grsz11)  Please explain to me how Mr. Williamson is LESS notable than the LEAST NOTABLE  Pittsburgh hockey player for whom you've written a biography.  And meanwhile, please explain to me how Mr. Williamson is LESS notable than the "Scrubs" episode titled "My Manhood" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Manhood), which you considered notable enough to write a wiki article about.   Trasel (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha, attacks are really the way to go.  Grsz  11  19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was merely a relevant observation, not an attack. OBTW,  Looking back through your edit log, I can see that you dropped the AFD bomb on Mr. Willianson's page less than 10 minutes after you and he had a disagreement over an edit at the Barack Obama page.  Is that the "way to go"? Trasel (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, this page is only for discussion of the article nominated for deletion. If you have a problem, take it up somewhere else, but please stop bombarding this page with your personal attacks.  Grsz  11  20:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your posting of this AFD in apparent retaliation for the subject's disagreement with you on another article page is entirely relevant: if that's the only reason the article should be deleted, then this discussion is a waste of everyone's time. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you could point to said disagreement ... I'm pretty sure the community doesn't consider every undo a user performs a "disagreement"  Grsz  11  00:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm fairly certain reviews on Amazon are not reliable sources to establish notability.  Grsz  11  21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point, but what about any of these reviews, that I found in just a couple of minutes of Google searching:


 * http://www.sfreviews.net/freehold.html


 * http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3480


 * http://www.sfsite.com/12a/fr189.htm


 * https://thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=590ea6c610b2b2dca8a4195d718c75d8&topic=19508.msg246726


 * And I'm sure there are more reviews in hard copy publications. This doesn't sound like "little or no third-party coverage" to me...  Trasel (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How are any of those cites reliable? San Francisco Chronicle reviews?  Grsz  11  21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahem.... In those instances, SF stands for "Science Fiction", not "San Francisco". Trasel (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, even less reliable. But the point remains, are there reviews from reliable sources such as newspapers, etc.  Grsz  11  21:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Several independant sources have been shown. Edward321 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, grow up. The guy is an established author published by an established house.  Keep him, of course.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flight-ER-Doc (talk • contribs) 02:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)  — Flight-ER-Doc (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - the author has sold many books to major commercial publishers, and many of these books have been reviewed by solid professional science-fiction reviewers. In addition to the previously mentioned reviews on sfreviews.net, qando.net, and sfsite.com, I found one more: http://www.sfrevu.com/php/Review-id.php?id=5517 . All of these sites are commercial, professionally run, and well known within the science-fiction book market. It isn't reasonable to insist on newspaper reviews of science fiction, much less military science fiction, for two reasons: newspapers review only a miniscule fraction of published science fiction, and science-fiction readers do not make buying decisions based on newspaper reviews. The fact that Williamson has been selling books reliably for many years is sufficient reason to keep his page on Wikipedia. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Dont remove this article. It is a notable person who I know to be a great guy. I've seen really stupid pages on Wikipedia, why not keep good content? Thomas Gooch (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC) - — Thomas Gooch (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I agree that there are rather poor articles out there, but simply because they exist or because you like the subject doesn't make this article notable or worthy of a keep.  Grsz  11  05:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Not only is the author very well established, he has written far more meaningful and noteworthy material than some of the other pages the complaintant has written themself.User:Cordova829 — Cordova829 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please, the ad hominem attacks are pathetic and just show that you're unable to formulate a respectable argument.  Grsz  11  15:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're entire argument for the deletion of the argument, by using the "non notable" label, has been based on ad hominem attacks. The author's article should not be deleted. My attack was uncalled for, but then again so was your attack upon the author. End of argument. User:Cordova829 —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC).
 * By that logic, every AfD on a biography is an attack on its subject.  Grsz  11  01:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Can't really understand what the issue is. The guy's a recognized published author with a following of fans. Wikipedia would be incomplete without these types of bios on the site. ShallCarry (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep: OGMAFB. The guy's a serious SF and military fiction author, published by the biggest publisher of SF around, Baen Books; his military fiction is published by a thoroughly mainstream publisher, Avon Books. Is there anyone besides the submitter who thinks this doesn't count for notability? -- Jay Maynard (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy landslide keep pile-on. Writers are notable, let's move on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a multi-published author. Six or seven books, and one more in the works that already has prospective buyers queing up. These facts should resoundingly equate to a -- KEEP --. Subjectively, I'd like you to keep him, too. I like his stuff. Duwe6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.38.210 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep: The dude's published books with major publishers. That alone makes him notable enough to retain. This whole affair seems more like a personal attack than a reasoned argument to delete, IMO. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2008 (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.