For those keeping score, the Michael Z Williamson article on Wikipedia has not been deleted after a long and fractious discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_July_21#Michael_Z._Williamson
The outcome of the deletion discussion was ‘no consensus’ i.e. notability wasn’t decided one way or another. This was mainly because of the brigade of trolls who descended on the discussion at Williamson’s request.
The finding states:
“The result was no consensus. Wikipedia deletion discussions are not votes, but attempts at establishing whether there is a consensus among editors to delete an article in the light of our applicable inclusion rules, notably WP:GNG and in this case WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. As such, while the numbers of people advocating for keeping or deleting the article do matter, the strength of their arguments in light of established Wikipedia policies and guidelines matters more. Our rules require a rough consensus for deletion; absent such consensus, the article is kept. I conclude that this is the case here.”
Ironically the strongest reason for deleting the article was Michael Z Williamson’s tantrum/reverse psychology demand that the page be deleted:
“Given that Williamson himself has requested deletion, I need to determine whether WP:BIODEL applies. According to that policy, “biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete”. I find that the first criterium of this policy does not apply here. Williamson is a published author who has publicly promoted himself as such; accordingly, he is a public figure. His view on the existence on the article about him is therefore not determinative. “
So the anarcho-encylopedic consensus is that Williamson is notable enough to be a public figure but maybe not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page.
John Scalzi’s surprise cameo also gets a mention:
“I do give weight to the professional opinion of the author and Wikipedian John Scalzi, who, while clearly no friend of Williamson’s, makes a persuasive case that we have routinely accepted articles about authors of comparable apparent notability. While this opinion, as well as other thoughtful “keep” and “delete” opinions, can’t establish a consensus that clearly does not exist, they weigh against attempting to find a consensus for deletion here. “
The possibility of a sequel has not been ruled out:
“Consequently, the article is kept for now. It can be renominated for deletion after an appropriate time. Any new deletion discussion should probably be semi-protected from the beginning, as this one has now been, to prevent the recurrence of canvassing and sockpuppetry.”
Thus ends yet another chapter in the annals of “supposed libertarian throwing a tantrum because others are using their free speech in ways he doesn’t like”.