Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay Area Science Fiction Association


 * 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   keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Bay Area Science Fiction Association

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google book and news searches on the title bring up zero results. Only claim to notability in the article is a few notable members which does not necessarily transfer to the organization itself. RadioFan (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  --  JN  466  02:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  --  JN  466  02:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I am a member of this club (and a former President of it). I've updated a bunch of the references of the article to the organization's own web site so that the complaint that it's unsourced (which was justified) can be removed. As far as references from other sites go, I found more than you might expect. The club's current Hugo Award Recommendations are references from SF AwardsWatch at http://www.sfawardswatch.com/?p=2980. The Hugo-Award winning magazine Emerald City references the club many times, including for instance http://www.emcit.com/emcit074.shtml#Shadow reporting on author Tad Williams' appearance there a few years ago. While the club is no LASFS or NESFA, it is certainly a legitimate fan organization with influence on the SF fan community. Would it make RadioFan happier if the article listed some of the mentions of the club in the article itself? Kevin Standlee (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The references provided in the article are all primary sources, the club's website, which does not help establish notability unfortauntely. Wikipedia's notability guidelines insist on significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources where the club has been the subject of the article.  Passing mentions in the press, such as announcements of  events or articles which are primarily about an author and mention the club on briefly also dont help establish notability.  As president of the club, you should avoid editing the article as you have a conflict of interest.  I left some additional information about this on your talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not the President of BASFA. I am a former president of the club, which you would know if you actually read what I wrote. I conclude from your lack of attention that your primary reason for citing the entry for deletion is because you personally aren't familiar with the organization, which has been in existence for more than fifteen years. Kevin Standlee (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You want more citations of the organization's existence from other publications. Well, File 770, which has won the Hugo Award several times (as has its editor) -- although I'm expecting you probably don't think the Hugo Award is notable either, even though it's probably the most important award in the field of science fiction and fantasy -- has reported on BASFA's meetings and activities several times. Would citations to F770 articles mentioning BASFA prove to you that the group actually exists? Kevin Standlee (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Comment The Hugo Award is certainly notable and anyone who wins it is probably notable as well. But we aren't discussing the notability of that award, we are discussing the notability of this club.  I dont think anyone doubts that the club exists but as I mentioned on your talk page, existence does not prove notability.  It is the notability of the club that is being discussed here. If you've not read WP:ORG yet, you should.  That is the litmus that is being used here.--RadioFan (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak KeepWhile I am yet to find any solid reliable sources for this organisation that would make it pass WP:ORG, a good look around its GHits seems to indicate that the organisation does have some notability, especially as a lobbying organisation for awards such as the Hugos. This organisation certainly does appear to produce an award recommendation list that does have some influence. I appreciate that influence does not always mean notable, but in this case believe that it does have some bearing on the overall general notability. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Google hits are not a good indication of notability. Solid reliable sources are.--RadioFan (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Having seen a few of these discussions escalate as it appears to now be doing, I'd recommend that both Kastandlee and RadioFan take a breath and a break. RadioFan: while I appreciate what you are doing, where you are coming from, and what you are trying to achieve, you should take into account that you are dealing with a fairly new editor who has passion and drive, and wikipedia needs this in its contributors. I also believe that WP:COI is a harsh accusation to level in this occurence, and instead of stating that an editor has this you may have been better off statinng that the editor "may" have this, to AGF. My reading of WP:COI is that it relates primarily to commercial interests and is a little over the top in this case. Kastandlee: I know where you're coming from too. What is considered notable in Wikipedia is a little confusing compared too how things work in the real world. However, it is their rules and it's best to play by them. Similarly, what makes up a reliable source can be frustrating -- the circular argument that just because a source is notable enough to have a wikipedia entry doesn't make it reliable does my head in sometimes. Has there been any write-ups of the BASFA in somewhere like Locus, or local SF press? These would go a long way to demonstrating notability. Has the club fanzine been nominated for/won any awards? These should also help. If you can go through whatever records you have and add links for these references to this AfD that would be more helpful that getting into a disagreement with RadioFan. Your passion and drive to make wikipedia better is appreciated, and don't be disheartened by this initial setback. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment While I appreciate what you are trying to do and welcome help for new editors, no accusation has been made of COI. Your interpretation of WP:COI is also a bit too narrow.  The opening sentence of that guideline mentions individuals, companies and groups.  COI warnings left on user pages such as was left on this editors page are filled with cautionary language and is careful not to accuse.  It's advice, and good advice, to avoid editing as maintaining a neutral point of view is difficult when you are close to a subject.   Everyone stepping back and seeing things with a bit more context would be advisable as well.  Deleting this article isn't a judgement on this organization, it just is what it is.--RadioFan (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment RadioFan:"While I appreciate what you are trying to do and welcome help for new editors, no accusation has been made of COI.", meet RadioFan:"As president of the club, you should avoid editing the article as you have a conflict of interest." You two should get acquainted. 128.205.230.94 (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, if the only thing that establishes notability is coverage by the dead-tree newspaper that also makes their content available for free on the web, you might as well delete the article now. (And lots of others.) But here are a bunch of references that I know of. However, none of them are in dead-tree ink-and-paper newspapers, so they probably don't meet "notability." SF AwardsWatch has reported on the club's Hugo Award Recommendation nights at http://www.sfawardswatch.com/?p=2980 and http://www.sfawardswatch.com/?p=1557. The club's minutes are published in every issue of SF/SF: http://efanzines.com/SFSF/index.htm. A few of the mentions in the Hugo-Award-winning _Emerald City_ are http://www.emcit.com/emcit013.shtml#Home and http://www.emcit.com/emcit067.shtml and http://www.emcit.com/emcit072.shtml and http://www.emcit.com/emcit074.shtml#Shadow -- non-casual mention here, as the club hosted a proto-convention for Tad Williams. (EmCit mentioned BASFA a lot; I can find more references if necessary.) Hugo Award winner Frank Wu discusses artwork he's done for BASFA: http://www.frankwu.com/fan1.html. Passing mentions in File 770: http://file770.com/?p=17 http://file770.com/?tag=basfa and Locus: http://www.locusmag.com/2002/Weblogs/Epublications04.html. (Both F770 and Locus are Hugo Award winning magazines in the field, and while I've had articles published in both of them, I don't think I can be credibly considered to be a controlling figure for either of them, which I mention to try and short-circuit any further conflict-of-interest accusations.) Hugo Award-nominated writer John Hertz mentions the club's occasional practice of meeting in places other than the San Francisco Bay Area: http://johnhertz.sciencefictionleague.org/jh-2008-hana1-isaw.htm -- and as I recall, that last was originally published ink-on-paper before being put online, but it's not a newspaper. I suspect, however, that none of these are sufficiently notable for RadioFan or anyone who isn't actually part of the community of SF/F fandom. I do have to admit that we've never received any coverage of which I'm aware in the San Jose Mercury News or on television or on radio. If that's the only way to be considered notable, you'd better delete about half of Wikipedia right now. Kevin Standlee (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment to Kastandlee As I understand it, dead tree publications are fine for demonstrating notability. If you can provide details of the publication, date and page that should suffice -- enough information so that anyone who wishes may locate this source. Has the BASFA been mentioned in any genre publications such as encyclopaedias, articles by folks such as John Clute, Gardner Dozois, more than a passing mention in Ansible or similar? These would all help. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to RadioFan This diff where you say "As president of the club, you should avoid editing the article as you have a conflict of interest" could give the impression that you are accusing Kastandlee of having a conflict of interest. If Kastandlee was editing the article to present a particular POV I would share a similar concern, but when I read over the article I am impressed by how NPOV it is. WP:COI says that editors like Kastandlee "should" avoid editing pages such as these, it doesn't say that such practice is expressly forbidden. I'm not seeing any POV pushing here. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you. Kevin Standlee (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:COI says those with a conflict of interest should avoid editing, I recommended the same. No accusation of POV issues was made.  You give the impression that I made a false accusation which is just as serious if not more than editing with POV.  See it goes both ways.  Let's just stick to the article please.--RadioFan (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm quite certain BASFA exists, thank you.  It may not be the largest such group (that's LASFS, I expect), but it's a functional organization notable within science fiction fandom.  To be sure, the current article could use a wider selection of citations.  Wyvern (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Still now clear how this subject meets notability guidelines. We've established that it exists, but thats not notability.  I appreciate that there are a number of editors that like the organization but that also doesn't help here.  If the organization is notable, certainly there are reliable sources that can be cited.  The club's website isn't enough.--RadioFan (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, RadioFan, you've well established that you don't think it's notable and that you've nothing better to do. I am content that you and I should disagree over the notability of BASFA, but I do not see any need to delete the work of others because of it; a poor reference list is cause for improvement, not deletion.  Wyvern (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Within its context the BASFA is noticable and lack of good solid references != a reason for deletion, but means the references need to be updated. --Martin Wisse (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia's notability guidelines disagree: "there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." --RadioFan (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment One particular user seems to have an axe to grind against this one entry. There seems to be no other support for deletion. 128.205.230.94 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's all continue to assume good faith here, folks. There are real issues with this article and while I too believe the subject of the article to be notable it certainly could use a bit better sourcing. - Dravecky (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

'Keep and Comment' No, actually there is no evidence of good faith here, and demonstrable evidence of a Vendetta. As of 04:22 02/27 there have been more than a dozen 3rd party mentions of the club provided, however RadioFan continues to insist thirteen hours later than nothing other than the club website exists. I have clicked each link provided and verified that each page does indeed contain a reference to the site. I do not see a good faith discussion here, rather it would appear that facts are irrelevant to the case. If you want to return this to a good faith discussion, then I would suggest that you remove RadioFan's persistent denials and answer to the multitude of 3rd party references provided. 99.92.91.191 (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment While not relevant to the AfD at hand, I think that the above is a little over the top. Please keep the discussion civil. FWIW, I think we all can assume that RadioFan is acting in good faith -- while s/he has nominated several sf fan-related articles for deletion I am happy to believe that this is because s/he does not believe that they are of a standard s/he believes that wikipedia entries should be held up to. That said, my own feeling is that RadioFan's bar is higher than my own, and many others who believe the page should be kept. I'd strongly suggest that the best approach is to spend more time retrieving as many reliable and relevant sources for BASFA, and no effort trying to antagonise RadioFan. At the end of the debate, RadioFan is not the one who will decide whether the page is kept or deleted. An uninvolved admin will make the call, so I'd strongly suggest spending time getting all of the sources you can. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Continued insistence on the non-existence of information which has been repeatedly provided is not a method of demonstrating good faith. Instead it demonstrates that no amount of reasonable input is going to sway this person's opinion.  Given that RadioFan has been show to be actively seeking out and marking each and every SciFi club for deletion, the two of these together demonstrate the explicit attack generated by this person. jorhett (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would like to briefly mention this comment left on LiveJournal: http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/2917411.html?thread=55908899#t55908899. It does appear that, during discussion of Ottawa Science Fiction Society, several other entries on SF clubs were brought up, two of which user RadioFan has now started AfD talks on.  I am pointing this out only to explain why some feel there is a lack of good faith, not to judge any actions on any "side" of the issue. Clockster (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep and Comment This article most certainly needs work, but BASFA appears to be notable. The problem seems to be that a few notable items (such as the Hugo recommendation list) are not included in the article, let alone sources for them. If no one minds and if I get a chance after editing another article I'm working on, I will try to help clean up the article myself. I'm a neutral editor, which I mention only because conflict of interest issues have already been brought up. Clockster (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I wanted to note that I have added more sources and a little more information to the BASFA page tonight, and I believe that, if it didn't meet notability or source guidelines before, it does now. I of course welcome other editing, discussion, and/or information, as I am not an expert on BASFA or notability in the least.  Clockster (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - but needs better sourcing. Kevin, you know me, so believe me when I say that you're missing the distinction we make here between mere mentions (even in notable and reliable sources), and substantial coverage of an organization. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment But if nothing from the SF fan community counts for any variety of reasons, then I guess it's going to die, because I'll have to admit that there has never been any "mundane" dead-tree newspaper or television/radio coverage of the club. Everything that ever mentions the club at any level is from the SF fandom community, and as far as I can tell, everything there has been dismissed as non-notable. By that standard, in my opinion, vast swaths of SF fan activity doesn't exist, while relatively minor things are "notable" because they caught the attention of a newspaper or television reporter. Kevin Standlee (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Over the last several days the citations section has improved considerably.  While it seems nothing would convince RadioFan, I for one find it much better than it was only a few days ago.  Wyvern (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * reply to Kevin - has there never been a fanhistorical article about BASFA in some notable fanzine like Mimosa or Science Fiction Chronicle or Locus? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * reply to Orangemike Perhaps you might explain why the Locus references documented above are insufficient? These continued questions which have been repeatedly answered is exactly why we know this to be a witch hunt, and not an actual search for information. It would appear we're wasting our time, and I'm certainly going to stop wasting my money supporting Wikipedia.  I can easily conclude that nothing of note refers to it as well, as long as I ignore all the evidence. jorhett (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply to Jorhett A couple of points you may want to consider. 1) in case you're not sure, OrangeMike (like many others posting here) is trying to help you. (It certainly looks that way to me, if you're not trying to help, OM, please accept my apology.) Many of us here would not like to see this article deleted, but to seal the deal we need good, solid references. Articles by notable people that cover BASFA in some detail, a solid history in a notable fanzine, notable events that BASFA has had a recognised role in or organised. Anything and everything you can find. Which brings me to 2) which is that the one Locus reference I can find in this discussion is just not up to scratch. It's a link to the BASFA website. That's all it is. If it had some sort of article, paragraph or statement attached to it we could work with it. But just a link isn't enough, unfortunately. If it was something mentioned in the News section, that would be great. I hope this helps. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article still needs improvement (and some more inbound links not related to this discussion) but does now make a decent case for the subject's notability. PWilkinson (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment While I'm admittedly not un-biased (I helped form the club back in 1991), I do have to wonder about the Notability requirements for organizations. Several past and present members of the club have been "notable" for their activities or actions (called "fanac" within the science fiction community). Several Hugo winning authors and artists, fanzine writers and editors, costumers and convention organizers have been members of the club, both before and after their own "notability". In fact the club started as a place where folks could gather to socialize instead of only seeing each other at convention planning meetings and "work" parties. Many of the key club members (past and even present) have been instrumental in the organizing and operations of the 1993 World SF Convention in San Francisco and the 2002 World Science FIction Convention in San Jose, as well as helping staff many other Worldcons, WesterCons and other regional SF conventions. The club, per se, didn't directly sponsor these events (they each had 501(c)(3) non-profit corporations), but BASFA was where they relaxed, where discussions and planning details were done and where bids where launched. While the club may not have been in the spotlight, the people who make up the club have done considerable "notable" (even famous) things relating to the field of science fiction and SF Fandom. BASFA may be most "notable" for it's members, but is that enough?? Would a group of famous writers or artists be notable because of its' members, even if there were few newspaper articles or no books about it? -- Kf6spf (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * reply to Kf6spf - the basic rules for a group are found at WP:CLUB. You have to remember that Notability is not contagious!. The store that sold Tucker his Beam's Choice did not share in his status as fannish legend; the machine on which the first edition of The Enchanted Duplicator was printed did not thus acquire a spark of stefnal glory. Unless a venue is written about as its own independent topic (such as the Algonquin roundtable), the notability of the members and habitues thereof is irrelevant; "associational items" are for the collector, or the auctioneer looking to pump up his yield. Many frat chapters, sewing circles, book clubs, lodges, union locals, drinking clubs, college and school societies, etc. have had one or two or twenty or one hundered notable members, without ever thus becoming notable in their own rights. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a note of thanks to the editors who are trying to get this discussion back on track. I've stayed out of the discussion for a bit because of this. The focus here needs to be on whether or not this article can meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion not on me or what anyone thinks my agenda may be.  I assure you that I have nothing against this club or science fiction in general.   If the concerns above are addressed and the consensus is that the article should be kept, that's great. I'm not the boogie man, I'm not out to get you, your club, or your chosen interest and neither is Wikipedia.  I didn't make the rules nor can I delete this article.  That can only happen after a complete discussion and only if the consensus is that it should be deleted based on established guidelines that are referenced above and the should deletion be necessary, it's done by an uninvolved 3rd party.  Once all of this is done, I encourage each editor here who has expressed some concerns with Wikipedia's processes, here or anywhere else (I've read a lot of nasty things written about me and Wikipedia in general recently as a result of this and related AFDs), to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) and share your point of view. If anyone feels that Wikipedia's inclusion standards or definition of reliable source are too rigid or behind the times, that's the place you can affect the most change.--RadioFan (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article as a whole may need improvement, but it represents an important portion of the history of Fandom. I think that this is an overreach of Wiki "Notability." (Ceronomus)


 * 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.