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. L Faraone 04:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Sales

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR. I declined an A7 CSD on this due to the BSFA award, ~~but really, fan awards such as this aren't much of an indicator of notability~~.Haven't found any sources beyond his own website, sales sites and passing mentions here and there; nothing sufficient for a pass of WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the BSFA Award is no more a "fan award" than the Hugo Award is. After the Arthur C Clarke Award, it is the most notable genre fiction award in the UK, and has been awarded to novels since 1970 and short fiction since 1980.Tanzeelat (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just quoting the BSFA's website. They seem to be at pains to point out that it's a fan award, which effectively, it is - winners are voted for by the BSFA's membership, rather than judged by a panel like the ACCAs. Nothing wrong it that, but technically it does make the BSFA a fan award - as, incidentally, is the Hugo. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with this argument is that we're not given a good reason as to why a fan award isn't an indicator of notability. The Hugo is a fan award. It's also considered the most influentual award in the field of written American science fiction, so why wouldn't it be an indicator of notability? The field of British science fiction takes the BSFA awards seriously. I would argue that, in itself, is a reason for us to do the same. There is no inherent disqualification if an award is a fan award, what matters is the role it plays. /82.199.181.2 (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point, and on reassessing, I'm inclined to agree. I'll strike that from the rationale. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I think the discussion would benefit from another focus: not "do we want to?", as it has been so far (I think we do want to) but "could we?", as in "do we actually have enough good sources to write this article?". Not as sure about that, but happily proved wrong. /82.199.181.2 (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The criterion says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"--nothing about who gives that award or honor. The BSFA Award is well-known and significant in the U.S. and U.K. speculative fiction publishing and fan communities. rosefox (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking his isfdb listing, I see he has a reasonable body of work, some of which seems to have been reviewed by sfsignal, Strange Horizons, and Locus, among others, so I'd say he meets the notability guidelines, although the article really could use being filled out a bit more. He's quite a prolific reviewer, I see Geoffrey.landis (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If winning the BSFA doesn't make you a notable science fiction author, you can't become a notable science fiction author. htom (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.