Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space Science Fiction Magazine/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:42, 16 October 2008.

Space Science Fiction Magazine

 * Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk)

This article is a GA, and I'm nominating it for FA as a result of a conversation on FAC about very short FAs. This article is 412 words long, which would make it by some way the shortest article ever to become featured. (The shortest I know of is 2005 Azores subtropical storm, which is 722 words of prose.) However, I believe it meets the FA criteria. It is comprehensive, and includes every scrap of information that I know of that relates to the magazine. I will start a thread on FAC talk titled Very short FAs for any discussion that does not belong in this FAC, such as the general question of whether there is a minimum length for a featured article. Mike Christie (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments.
 * "The volume numbering was, unsurprisingly, regular, with one volume of two numbers" - I'm unclear about the meaning of this sentence. Does 'regular numbering' have a specific meaning in publishing jargon?  Why is it unsurprising?
 * Most magazines have a numbering sequence that starts with Vol. 1, No. 1, and goes on with a standard number of issues per volume. However, one frequently encounters irregularities in the sequence of numbers; see the chart in Amazing Stories for a truly odd example (look at the early 1980s).  All this sentence is attempting to say is that the issues are numbered Vol 1/No 1, and Vol 1/No 2, and that there are thus no irregularities in the sequence.  I've spent a little time thinking about how to clarify this and finally decided it was a distraction, so I've just cut it to simply state the numbering, without a comment on the regularity.  Let me know if that works for you. Mike Christie (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the way you have it now is clear and concise.--ragesoss (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Questions that come to mind as I read this: 1) where and how widely was it distributed? I suspect a direct answer to that is impossible, but there may be information on where and how widely were the related radio programs broadcast.  2) How did this magazine fit into the broader science fiction publishing landscape?  3)  How did the contents fit into the broader cultural and literary landscape?  The article addresses the latter somewhat, but the former hardly at all.
 * 1) I have no information at all on distribution, unfortunately, and have been unable to find out anything about the radio programs either. The radio programs were syndicated, meaning (I gather) that I can't just say they were broadcast on channel X.  In any case, the radio programs were tied to more closely to the spy and horror magazines, so I think more details on them would be somewhat peripheral. Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I've added a couple of sentences at the start summarizing the science fiction publishing landscape at the time Space was launched. This was definitely needed; I can add more if necessary -- I have plenty of material on the overall state of the industry.  I also added a sentence at the end on the possible connection with the liquidation of American News Company; this makes me a little nervous and I am inclined to cut it again.  The problem is that I am saying "not known", when what I really should be saying is something like "the secondary sources I have make no comment on".  For all I know it is well known that Space went under because of the liquidation of ANC, but Ashley just didn't mention it in his books.  As it stands it feels uncomfortably like an OR sentence. Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here. I don't have any further material about the magazine itself or its reception; are you asking for a comment on the general cultural status of sf magazines at that time? Mike Christie (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Much improved in terms of context. It seems like the American News Corporation bit is relevant whether or not that was the cause of Space's downfall, although I understand your concern about finding appropriate phrasing that doesn't skirt the OR border.  An impersonal statement of ignorance ("it is not known") is unlikely to be interpreted as definitive ("nobody knows"); I think the way you have it works.  What I'm getting at with the last question is, what were these stories about?  What themes do they address?  There is plenty of scholarship on specific sf themes during certain periods, and their relationship to broader cultural issues, but if the article doesn't say anything about the contents except for a few quotes about how it didn't matter, it's going to be frustrating for any reader with a serious interest in sf history.  If everything except one story is out of copyright, is there any chance we could put the stories themselves on wikisource?--ragesoss (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your last question first; yes, I'm sure we could. I hope it's not a prerequisite for FAC!  For the story themes: the magazine itself had no thematic unity that I can see, and certainly none was declared.  Some examples: the Jakes story is about a human prospecting for a Martian El Dorado; he finds it but it is destroyed before his eyes, and he returns to earth, abandoning the Martian frontier.  The Clarke is not sf at all; it's one of his Tales from the White Hart stories, about a scare when a truck overturns and people think it's fissionable material that could explode.  It turns out to be full of bees.  The Vance is about an editor who reads a crackpot manuscript which instructs him to perform certain actions; the story ends with the editor's mysterious disappearance.  I could add some of this summary material to the article if you think it would be valuable.  Generally, I'd have to say the magazine didn't have enough of a personality to be established as part of any sf themes or trends of the time.  The Ashley reference that I don't currently have with me implied it was sent the "scrapings of the Scott Meredith Literary Agency", meaning that the stories were ones that had been rejected all around the market.  I didn't add that in because (if I recall correctly) Ashley's wording wasn't definite enough for me to say that that's exactly what happened, but it's a highly plausible suspicion.  That in turn would argue against any editorial policy -- these were inexperienced sf editors, and they took what they could get and promptly went out of business.  Mike Christie (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I think article is incomplete without more discussion of the magazine contents.  Even without any explicit discussion, the summaries you've just given bring up a number of themes and topics that are very suggestive to readers familiar with the historical context.  If readers had somewhere to go (e.g., Wikisource) to get more details in that regard, I don't think it would be much of an issue, but without that, I think it might be appropriate to append a section listing and introducing the stories in each issue.--ragesoss (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be somewhat undue weight? There are eighteen stories in the two issues, none of which are individually notable; adding even a half sentence would be a substantial paragraph with nothing but primary sourcing and no support in secondary sources for the interest of the material.  In the Imagination (magazine) article I added a description of the lead story in the first issue, and I think something like that might work here.  What I've done to respond to your point is to add a description of the cover story in the caption, and a description of the Jakes story in the text where it's mentioned. Is that getting closer to what you'd like to see?  I could also add a capsule description of the Clarke, since it's mentioned in the text. Mike Christie (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what you've done sounds reasonable, although I don't think it's an issue of undue weight if it's in a separate list-like section.--ragesoss (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI: I just added a note about the "barrel-scrapings"; when I went back to look Ashley was definite about it being the Scott Meredith Literary Agency, so that was a nice little tidbit to add. Mike Christie (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the ISFDB link, both issues have 130, not 132, pages. Also, why is that link attributed to Texas A&M?  I see no mention of that on the linked pages or in the ISFDB FAQ or homepage.  Since it is a wiki source, shouldn't it link to the specific revision used rather than the dynamic page?--ragesoss (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The issues have 128 numbered pages, with a front and back cover. Sources vary on how to record the number of pages for magazines; I've seen 128 (numbered pages), 130 (page number of the back cover if the numbering were to continue), and 132 (actual pages, counting both covers) for this.  The Tuck Encyclopedia of SF lists it as 128 pages.  Since material such as fiction, editorials and tables of contents is sometimes printed on magazine covers (though Space never did so) I think 132 makes the most sense.  I think 130 is the least sensible number.  The ISFDB used to be hosted by Texas A&M but moved in April of this year; I hadn't noticed that till you asked the question.  It's owned by an individual, Al von Ruff, so I've changed the reference to name him as publisher.  It's a wiki, so I can link to a rev if we decide that's the best thing to do, but I'm not convinced it is.  For one thing, I'm not really using it as a reference -- it's self-published, and although for reasons I won't go into it is possible to make an argument that it's reliable, I am actually using the issues themselves as the reference.  The ISFDB link is a convenience link to a web index to the contents.  This is a compromise worked out in an earlier FAC to avoid using a self-published source as a reference, but still allow readers the convenience of accessing a web index.  It can be cut if necessary, but I think it's useful.  The real underlying information is in the database, not the wiki; e.g. here is the Spring 1957 issue.  It's not possible to link to versions of this.  I can switch to a link to a rev of the index page if you like. Mike Christie (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable.--ragesoss (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not much to say, with such a short article... just one possible improvement in the lead; "when the publishers liquidated late in 1957" - is there a more specific date known? A bit more context, if possible, would be good. Giggy (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of my sources are in Texas, some in New York; the one I have with me says "... saw only one more issue [...] dated August 1957, when the publishers went into liquidation and the magazines vanished." I don't think that's precise enough to say it was August when they liquidated; "when" in this context could also mean "shortly afterwards".  I'll check the other source tomorrow or Tuesday. Mike Christie (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a look and there's nothing specific about the liquidation date. The two magazine issues actually appeared on newsstands in January and June, respectively; all we can say from that is that the liquidation was no earlier than June. So I think that's all there is to say.  I haven't added the information about the actual appearance dates of the magazines to the article: all magazines appear a couple of months before their cover date, in order to extend their life on the newsstands, so I didn't think it was worth mentioning.  Mike Christie (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I know I should probably weigh in to the other discussion, but in the meantime... My view, as I've suggested various times before, is that short articles like this (longer ones, too, by the way) should provide some kind of context to help us understand the subject. For instance, in the very first sentence of the main part of this article, we are immediately given the name of Galaxy Science Fiction without any indication of what that is, or why it should be important.  I don't want to have to click on a blue link to understand an article.  Ironically, that article (though currently unassessed) does do a fair job of contextualizing its subject, with the following paragraph:

"The science fiction genre was flourishing by the end of the 1930s,[1] but World War II and its attendant paper shortages led to the demise of several magazines. By the late 1940s the market began to recover again.[2] From a low of eight active magazines in 1946, the field expanded to 20 in 1950.[3] Galaxy's appearance in 1950 was part of this boom; and according to critic Mike Ashley its success was the main reason for the subsequent flood of new releases: 22 more science fiction magazines appeared by 1954.[4]"


 * I would like something similar in this case. As far as I'm concerned, this article isn't comprehensive without it.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added some material; see the reply to ragesoss above for some details, particularly on the additional sentence on American News Company. Let me know if more is needed. Mike Christie (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better, many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Image comment - I am very impressed with the research that went into obtaining a free image for this article! Head and shoulders above the usual slapdash approach to images usage on most of WP Fasach Nua (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the copyright research I did on Image:SpaceSFMSpr1957.jpg, then I should give credit to Quadell, whose copyright research page I have found very useful, and which led me to the relevant copyright search pages. Mike Christie (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from : If this article is to become featured at this length and comprehensiveness, everything else should be almost perfect.
 * "ceased to appear"—sounds like the magazine disappeared into thin air.
 * This is one of those word choice problems that bedevils articles like this. There are only so many ways of saying that a magazine ceased publication.  "Ceased publication" here would give us: "ceased publication when the publishers liquidated" which puts "publication" awkwardly close to "publishers".  After some thought, I've cut the mention of the liquidation from the lead, and used "ceased publication"; let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "By 1957 the boom had reached its height,[2] with 24 science fiction magazines publishing at least one issue that year."-->"By 1957 the boom had reached its height;[2] 24 science fiction magazines published at least one issue that year."
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No comma needed after Dimension X.
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Same for Private Investigator Detective Magazine.
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Private Investigator appeared"—I don't like the use of "appear".
 * I tweaked this to "Private Investigator ' s first issue came out in 1956." Does that work? Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not "was published"? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Space's first issue was dated Spring 1957; oddly, it indicated on the masthead that it would be a bimonthly." Can we have a different word for "oddly", how about ironically?
 * Well, but is it really ironic? I think "odd" is a better fit; it's just strange that you would say "bimonthly" and have an issue dated "Spring".  I could go with "for some reason", but "oddly" seems conciser.  I don't see irony here, just some mistake on the part of the publisher.  Still, if others agree with you I'm OK with changing it.  Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading the sentence a couple more times, it seems OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Engel did manage to obtained stories from moderately well-known science fiction names for both issues, including John Jakes, Mack Reynolds, Jack Vance, and Raymond F. Jones."
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Ashley comments that the best story was Jakes' "The Devil Spins a Sun-Dream", which was atmospheric if poorly plotted." "comments"-->commented, keep the tense consistent.
 * This would probably be OK, but as it stands I was using present tense for the critical commentary, which is modern, and past tense for the period of the magazine. If you don't object I'd like to keep it that way; I think "commented" might imply to a reader that Ashley's comments were contemporary with the magazine. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "...shortly after which Republic Features Syndicate went into liquidation liquidated." Dabomb87 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I made this "went out of business"; I didn't want to finish the sentence with "liquidated" because it can be both transitive and intransitive, so a reader gets a moment of dislocation while they figure out which it is. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. May be a case of "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" on my part, but I think this article meets a reasonable interpretation of the FA criteria, despite its length. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Far far too short. I am all for articles being concise but this really fails 2b. It just isn't a sound article in terms of information given. If I'd seen this listed under FA articles and wanted to read it I'd be rather disappointed in the least by an article which hasn't been developed to the top level. The last section is barely beyond a stub and is basically a one paragraph article/ WHat happened to covering the various aspects of magazines such as background detail, production, critical reception etc which would normally have fleshed out paragraphs of their own on literature?? I've seen B class articles on magazines which are far more informative than this. The Bald One      White cat 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support with one comment: Should not the year of its founding be in the lead? Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just thought of something I may have missed: Is the year of the "founding" of a magazine equivalent to the release date of its first issue? Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think so -- I assume you meant that 1956 might be mentioned in the lead as the year when the magazine was planned? I don't think this is really necessary in the lead -- magazines can be planned for years before they appear in print.  I think it's OK to just leave the details in the body; is that OK? Mike Christie (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support; short article, everything seems fine. Giggy (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It fails criterion 2b. The final section is too short to form a section by itself and anyway contains information which still falls under the heading "Publication history and contents", therefore it should be merged with the preceding section. This results in a single section article, which is appropriate for the subject matter and the volume of information. The article therefore fails the criterion because, once this edit is performed, it will not have "a substantial ... table of contents". DrKiernan (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't even noticed the connection between "substantial table of contents" and the short articles; well spotted. I've no time to respond but will just comment that if this proves to be a consensus reason to not promote this article, I would not object -- I'm looking for consensus rather than promotion.  DrK, can I suggest you post a note about this connection between length and the FA criteria at one of the places the topic is being discussed? Mike Christie (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * DrK, in response to another editor I changed the structure around, and there is now a more even distribution of content between the sections. Do you still oppose based on  2b's requirement for a substantial table of contents? Mike Christie (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. DrKiernan (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does include everything that is available in secondary sources. The information you ask for simply doesn't exist, in reliable or unreliable sources.  I'm not sure what kind of information you're looking for with "background detail", but there's nothing on production.  Critical reception -- there's no detectable contemporary critical commentary; modern critics only refer to it in encyclopedic coverage, and I've quoted much of what is said.  The entire article on the magazine in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, the standard sf reference, is only 44 words.  I agree that it would be nice to have this information, but it's not there to be incorporated. Mike Christie (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this a better article than Electrician and Mechanic for instance? If this article was of a similar length and style to that and was more informative I would likely support it.  The Bald One       White cat 13:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As RJHall says below, Electrician and Mechanic ran for many more years, and had more issues, so there is more information in the sources to use. I can't prove there's nothing in reliable sources that I haven't found and used, but I have certainly used everything I could find.  I can't make it a "similar length" and "more informative" without sources.  If you could clarify the suggestion that I make the article "a similar [...] style" to Electrician and Mechanic perhaps I can respond to that. Mike Christie (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tentative Support once The Rambling Man's issues are addressed. I think the length is acceptible given the short run for the magazine. (How could it compare in length to Electrician and Mechanic when the latter ran for 26 years?)&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Comment&mdash;To me it seems all but FA worthy, despite the brevity. It is as long as it needs to be without delving into excessive detail. However: Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree somewhat with the above comments. I'd like to suggest a slight re-org. with different sections. A history section should include the first paragraph of "Publication history and contents" and parts of the last paragraph (first two and last two sentences). A content section should cover advertisements, stories, illustrations and biographical data. Also a couple more paragraph breaks might be welcome.
 * I like the reorg idea; I did something similar but not identical to your suggestion; let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any information about the revenue aspects of the publication? How did the authorship fees compare with the rivals.
 * No, none of the sources mention this. Mike Christie (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support; meets the criteria as they stand. In my view DrKiernan's opposition is pure wikilawyering, twisting the criteria to suggest something beyond what is meant - that an article have an "appropriate structure". Christopher Parham (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm not impressed by the content to be honest. Okay, it's very, very short and doesn't, in my opinion, reflect "the very best work" of Wikipedia, as we should expect from FAs. But specifically: Having said all that, I sincerely applaud the nominator for a considered approach to these shorter FACs, indeed initiating discussion in parallel with this nomination is a good thing. A better thing may have been to have launched said discussion beforehand, but hindsight is 20/20. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you imagine this on the mainpage? The lead is three sentences long and rather dramatically announces that the publication contained stories from the likes of Clarke and Vance before somewhat embarrassingly admits to there being only two editions.
 * I think you might have misread the lead -- it does say there were only two issues before it mentions the best-known authors. And I guess it might be viewed as dramatic to announce the names of well-known writers, but in such a short article there's not much else to say in the lead.  I did just add a note about the packaging, which I think is interesting; see also a comment below about those details.  As for being on the main page: I agree it would probably be best if articles this short weren't on the main page, but length isn't an FA criterion.  (That is, TFA and FA criteria aren't the same.) Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably you could tell us precisely what all stories were in each edition and who wrote them?
 * Yes, but I think putting that in the article would be somewhat undue weight, since none of the sources do so. The list is available to a reader of the article via the link to the ISFDB in the notes. Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First half of the first paragraph of the Publication history section is non-specific to this particular publication.
 * Yes. I got some comments (see earlier in this FAC) about a lack of context, and I added some of this material in an attempt to rectify that.  I'd argue that the genesis of the magazine in the package of two shows and four magazines that Engel put together is probably the most interesting thing in the article; this places the magazine as part of a packaging "concept", and also explains the genesis of the magazine.  Surely these are legitimate topics? Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Three red links is a shame for such a short article - another sign that it's not exactly our best work.
 * I'll see what I can do about creating worthwhile stubs on these, but I feel compelled to add that this particular objection is one of the few that has led to Sandy explicitly commenting in FACs to point out that the objection is not valid. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion either way about the value of redlinks (some people love them).  Regardless, I will try to get rid of them. Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "The liquidation of American News Company earlier that year, a major distributor, had led to the extinction of many magazines, as they had to scramble to find new distributors, but it is not known if Space was one of the victims.[9]" is interesting but again borders on WP:OR as to why it relates to this publication.
 * See above in the exchange with ragesoss; I expressed that concern to her but her view was that it was OK. I agree it's borderline, and would cut it if that were your sole reason to oppose.  (So please let me know if it is.) Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You say the "issues were numbered as a single volume with two issues" - but this does not appear on the front cover. Was it on the spine?  On the opening page?
 * I don't have the issues with me at the moment; I'll be back in Texas this weekend. However, I'm quite sure they were on the contents page; this information is almost always on the masthead or above the contents.  Do you have some concern about this information being accurate?  I believe the Tuck encyclopedia has the volume numbering info, so it isn't dependent on the primary source.  (I can check Tuck this weekend, if you like; it's in Texas too.) Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Back in Texas: I just checked, and the contents page gives the numbering as "Vol. 1 No. 1" for the first issue, and "Vol. 1 No. 2" for the second issue. Mike Christie (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Curious as to why you start the contents with a description of the advertisements therein. Surely you should focus on the stories?
 * Good point. This was poor organization left over from a change in response to an earlier comment; I've moved it to a better location.  Let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You also appear to use Space as a colloquial term for the publication, despite it only being in existence for a matter of moments... is this your choice?
 * Yes, it's mine; I hoped it would be unobtrusive. It's fairly standard practice in coverage of magazines to use an abbreviated form of the name to avoid lengthy repetition.  I can use the full name, or various forms of circumlocution, but I felt this was obvious and harmless.  See my next response, where I quote Ashley using Space SF as an abbreviation.  Do you think I should use that form, or even the full form of the name? Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was going to mention that myself with a joke that it looks as though you deliberately shortened it in a desperate attempt to reduce the article length even further. But then I couldn't think of a jokey way of saying that without it sounding a bit off, so I didn't. I think you should use the full name. DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it to Space SF, since that's what Ashley uses. I'd be fine with Space SFM, but I think the full name would be very clunky.  There are other magazines with similar names, but within the context of the article I don't think there's any possibility of confusion.  (A joke would have been fine; but then I couldn't think of an effective jokey way of saying that I was trying to cut text ....) Mike Christie (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "at the other active science fiction markets" - it could be worth expanding on this, I imagine you mean the novels and publications by more prominent magazines? Could you provide examples?
 * Unfortunately I can't give examples. The source here is Ashley; what he says about this point, in full, is "Space SF and most of Tales of the Frightened were assembled from barrel-scrapings provided by the Scott Meredith Literary Agency.  Even though the magazines carried some important names [he inserts a list] these were mostly stories that had done the rounds and failed to sell, or were reprints from UK magazines with no US sales.  Very few were written to order."  I know from my knowledge of sf magazine history that he means that the stories had been sent to the other active sf magazines of the day; there were a great many of them -- far too many to list, and there is of course no way to tell which ones any given story was sent to.  So I think it would be difficult to give more details here.  If you feel it's not clear (and perhaps you do, since it doesn't sound like you followed what I intended) then I can try rewriting to clarify it. Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "which was atmospheric if poorly plotted; the protagonist, a human prospector on Mars, finds a fabulous city, but an ancient booby-trap destroys it before his eyes." is this a quote? the first clause seems to be an opinion which, if not yours, ought to be "quoted".  This sentence is not cited either.
 * The cites got lost in the reorg I mentioned earlier. I've fixed them now.  As for the opinion: it's Mike Ashley's opinion, slightly paraphrased.  He actually says "Though limited in plot the story has a strong atmosphere, made all the more memorable by the poor quality of its companions."  I could quote Ashley directly but I didn't want to overdo the Ashley quotes, so I left it as a paraphrase.  I think this would be OK as a direct quote if you feel it's too opinionated as it stands; or I could just cut the judgement of the story and leave in the short description of the plot. Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did try to have that discussion here, and I also asked Sandy if there was a problem in testing the water. I didn't get anything like a strong objection at either place, and I feel I did all I could to get a discussion going before the submission.  Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggestions: Sorry I haven't gotten to this until now...
 * Have you tried Encyclopedia of Pulp Fiction Writers by Lee Server? If you don't have access to this, I could peek in it for you but not until Monday or so.
 * Please do, if you have time. Since it's an encyclopedia of writers (as opposed to editors or magazines) I'm not optimistic, but if you could look up Avallone and Engel there might be something relevant.  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'll let you know what I find. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Avallone has a 2-page entry, but Engel has nothing in Server's encyclopedia. I'd have to copy, scan, and send this to you. It's too long for me to reproduce in typing. I also looked in Science Fiction Writers, an encyclopedia edited by Richard Blieler. Space Science Fiction Magazine was mentioned in passing, but neither Avallone nor Engel had an entry.--Moni3 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think the Avallone entry has information that would benefit the article, yes, I'd like to see it. Can you scan it and email it to me?  My Wikipedia email is active.  I can also receive a fax if you would prefer that, if you can give me a few days to get back to NY. Mike Christie (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already replied to Moni on her talk page, but for those interested, there was nothing relevant in Avallone's bio; it didn't even mention his editorship of this magazine. Mike Christie (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know magazines and paperbacks are of a different sort of publication, but I bought a couple issues of this guy's magazine. It's a trade mag for pulp fiction collectors. Mine was signed by Ann Bannon too, so double cool. Write to him to find out what's available. My signed issue was purchased for $25, so obviously unsigned copies will be less.
 * I'll contact him. Looks like he's mostly interested in paperbacks, but I'm interested in that area too, so even though I'm doubtful he'd have anything for this article, I'd be interested.  Is it self-published?  Is it something you've used and feel passes WP:RS?
 * To be sure, the 2003 copy I have looks like it was a DIY job, but there are several writers who contributed to it, and the guy I referred you to appears to be the editor and publisher. For its purposes - an authority on pulp fiction writers, books, and other works, I believe it's a reliable source. I'm sure you know that pulp fiction is still the red-headed stepchild of literature, and most reputable academics won't touch it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have heard back from Gryphon Books, and they have no reference material on science fiction digests at all. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Mike Christie (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there information about how the material in this mag influenced other writers? It's difficult to read on the main page that a featured article was forgettable and unremarkable. --Moni3 (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, none of the stories appear to have been influential in any way. I agree that this would be a lousy TFA, and that short articles generally would make poor TFAs.  Although I'd like to see short articles free to get to featured status, I would support eliminating them from consideration for TFA. Mike Christie (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. (Subject of course to larger decisions about short articles at FA.)  I've been mulling this over intermittently, and have been half-tempted to jump in and suggest that this magazine be treated as though it were (essentially) a book of short stories or anthology in two volumes.  In which case, of course, much more would have to be said about the content.  But others have asked questions whose answers suggested that even this wouldn't really help flesh the article out.  Moreover, what's important about the magazine does seem to be its place in the magazine market scifi boom (and subsequent bust) of the 1950s, as well as the burgeoning notion of tie-ins with other media.  The article makes that point, succinctly but clearly.  There'll always be some kind of vague dissatisfaction with an article of this length (and/or with a topic of this relative insubstantiality).  It's not for nothing that Mike hadn't previously put this article up for FAC.  It's not as though he's shy about doing so; he's a seasoned FA regular.  But he was reluctant, and not without reason.  But going by WP:WIAFA in its current state, and also in recognition that this is small but well-formed, again I am supporting.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've been thinking about the "merge to something else" argument, and I think that if there were a merge target for this, it would be to Republic Features Syndicate, which would cover all four magazines and both radio shows, and might still be small enough to be a single unitary article.  I don't have sufficient sources for the other magazines, or for the shows, to make a reasonable article out of it.  I could also argue that the existence of reference works which cover the magazine independently of the company behind it would justify a similar treatment here.  However, I thought I should mention the point, in a sort of "full disclosure" spirit.  On a completely different note, regardless of whether this article is promoted or not, I would like to claim the record for the highest ratio of FAC word count to article word count ever.  I haven't gone and counted the others, but I'm willing to bet this is the record holder.  Mike Christie (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - With "It published stories by well-known writers, including Arthur C. Clarke and Jack Vance," in the lead, I expected at least a small paragraph on each of the works covered, as it could easily contain a little plot summary followed by any critical review, especially if they are "well-known writers" (which they are). I could see at least another 500 words come out of such a thing, which would dramatically increase the size and make this a complete page. Otherwise, I haven't a clue about the content. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be appropriate to discuss the content of a book of short stories, if the stories have received critical attention. The Martian Chronicles, for example, could probably draw on multiple critical sources for discussion of its stories; they've been influential in sf and are well-known.  Space SF, on the other hand, is not notable in the same way.  None of the stories have received any critical attention that I have been able to find.  The magazine's notability derives simply from its existence within a genre that has multiple historical reference works that document minor magazines such as this.  These works do not review the content; they ignore it.  Ashley, who is the only professional historian of sf to devote more than a sentence or two to the magazine, has little to nothing to say about the content -- there just isn't anything interesting to say.  I am not trying to make this article artificially short by avoiding adding material suggested by reviewers; on the contrary, I feel that adding details about the plots of nondescript and uninteresting stories that have drawn no attention from historians of sf would be undue weight.  I would be happy to add descriptions of the stories if that were relevant, and I've done so in two cases.  More would be padding, I feel. Mike Christie (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "I think it would be appropriate to discuss the content of a book of short stories, if the stories have received critical attention." That's not how the guidelines put it. They say that you can describe any of the content in summary as long as the whole thing has been proven notable by third party sources. They don't need to be notable. They do need to exist. Otherwise, there is an article without a point because it doesn't tell you anything about the content. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Prima facie Oppose It fails 2(b) by not even having  a table of contents... This nom is a fantastic rationale for revising WP:WIAFA... The entire article isn't much longer than the blurb on the Main Page would be, if this hit the Main Page... We'll just have to drag it through FAR when length restrictions pass&mdash;why FA it now? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 13:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick-fail—Sorry Mike, but this can't possibly satisfy the basic requirement of representing "our very best work". An FA is a one in a thousand example, and the scope, the "meat" is so narrow as to make such representation impossible. FAs are held up as fine bodies of work, and need to show significant subject matter. It's fine as a WP article; why don't you put your talents to preparing an article in this field that is able to stand as an example of our very best work. This does not. I don't know why this has remained on the list for so long, sucking in scarce reviewing resources. Tony   (talk)  13:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose This simply isn't comprehensive enough. It's a fine article indeed, but just isn't suitable for featured status. Good work with it. -- how do you turn this on  01:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Fails comprehensiveness test. Most of the article is about the publisher Republic Features Syndicate, Inc., who don't have an article. If they did, the magazine would probably be better dealt with as a section there. As it is no indication is given of their ownership, age or position in the pulp business. Was this "package" their first and only venture?  When, if ever, were the radio shows broadcast, & on what networks?  Well-written as far as it goes.  Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose much as I hate to. I think it's scope is too small, and might be better merged with it's publisher, as Johnbod suggests above. Basically, the scope of the article is too small, leaving the article feeling incomplete, even though it actually is. It can certainly stay as a stand-alone article, but I can't say anything more than it feels incomplete to the general reader. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I went digging in my stuff, and did you know there was another pulp mag published under this name? Robinson's Science Fiction of the 20th Century: An Illustrated History (ISBN 0-7607-6572-3) p. 139 has an illustration of a cover from Sept 1953, with a Philip K. Dick story in it. Robinson says "Space Science Fiction September 1953 Civiletti - The issue contained Philip K Dick's novel The Variable Man, complete. Dick was known for his innovative ideas and skill as a writer but had yet to achieve outstanding fame." Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to mention the magazine under discussion here, and neither does anything else I have, sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just playing Devil's advocate here, but which of the FA criteria mentions "scope"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Been here, done this. I think you done good, and I am honored to support this nomination becuase I feel we need more articles like this one on Wikipedia. I would suggest looking into creating an article on Republic Features Syndicate, it may help locate additional sources for the article. Otherwise I wish you luck with your nom, and judging by the above posts you are going to need all the luck you can get. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To avoid sounding like a broken record, I've avoided replying individually to the last few opposes, but I should probably add a summary comment. It seems to me that some of the opposes are arguing that an article cannot meet 1b unless it covers all the major information about the article's subject, regardless of whether secondary sources have done so.  This interpretation of 1b asserts that certain articles, regardless of length, simply cannot ever be FA.  A long article on a topic for which some key information is missing would fail this criterion.  This is not how the clause has historically been interpreted at FAC, nor is it the consensus of the recent discussions on WT:FAC (that discussion didn't reach a consensus either way on this point).


 * Assuming I've found all the relevant sources, which I think I have, this article is as complete as it can be. I believe an FA star should indicate that an article is the best that can be done, and should not be withheld because secondary sources haven't been written yet.  This point was discussed on WT:FAC too, and there was no consensus on that point either.  Mike Christie (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Leaning toward oppose. Mike is trying to make some case law here, and I support that intention. I don't have a problem with the length issue (pending FA talk page outcomes) but I am with Johnbod: Republic Features Syndicate has no article nor is it even redlinked. If the publication is notable enough for an article why not the publisher? And if the publisher had an article would this page be merge material? Until satisfied on these questions, I cannot support. As noted elsewhere, I believe small articles should be featurable but the merge issue needs to be satisfied on a case-by-case basis. Marskell (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just adding my 2 cents by supporting. I agree with Mike Christie and TomStar; comprehensiveness and length are two separate things. - Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This oppose, if it turns into an oppose, is one I can't really disagree with. It's true that if Republic Features Syndicate deserves an article, Space SF could sensibly be incorporated into it, and should not then be a separate FA.  I haven't done any research beyond Googling to find resources on RFS, so I can't assert that there is definitely no history there to be written. Mike Christie (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The basic premise that if a publication is notable and deserving of an article then so must its publisher be is flawed. FAC is not the place for arguments about merger proposals anyway, much less so when the merger target doen't even exist. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I posed the concern as a question. It is possible that the publication is notable enough for an article but not the publisher (although it would be a little odd); I would simply like to be satisfied on the point. As for merge discussions, there's no rule against them at FAC. Perhaps they should start occurring more often as one response to this short article issue. Marskell (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For minor genre magazines the publisher often existed only to publish that magazine, and would be unlikely to have separate notability. That doesn't apply here, though, as Republic Features Syndicate published other magazines, and two radio shows.  Some of the radio shows (by Karloff) were later released on LP; that's the only other significant reference I've been able to find about the company so far.  I'll agree that if Republic Features Syndicate can be written, this article should probably be merged into it.  I don't think I'm going to be able to prove to reviewers' satisfaction that it can't be written.  What's your opinion on the converse case: if you were convinced the article on the publisher can't be written, what then?  Mike Christie (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A check on the web appeared to show that the odds of assembling an article on Republic Features Syndicate that meets the notability criteria is quite low. There is very little information available; most of which consists of an address and the magazines they published. I think that is an unrealistic option. Sorry.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is getting too short.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Closing without prejudice: I will type up a closing rationale on the talk page after I finish promoting/archiving. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.