Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Internet Review of Science Fiction

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Review of Science Fiction[edit]

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

This internet publication doesn't seem to fulfill WP:WEB. Hasn't won any awards and does not seem notable. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I realize I may lose this because I'm not sure how to prove the notability of this site. An online science fiction magazine doesn't necessarily win awards, and it's notice is mostly on the web, but as the field's a niche interest, I'm not sure if the sources are notable. If I had the time (more in the sense of time in my busy life) to dig a little deeper and build out the article, ah but if wishes were fishes we'd all have a feast. But for my two cents, I'd say keep. I think evidence of notability could be found given sufficient time and effort. Jztinfinity (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having said all that about being to busy to try to improve things, I tried to improve things. I added a bunch of links, including citing the site winning the Locus Awards for 3 years. Jztinfinity (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searching led to blogs only (most of them talk about the closure of the IROSF) and I don't know of any usual sources for a website review. I think the blogs are worth taking a look though, particularly these two [1] [2] and a brief description at this university article [3]. Other blogs [4] [5] [6]. From the books search most are about authors who have in turn been published at the IROSF, but these three [7] [8] [9] might yield something (for what is available to read). I'm leaning towards keep (albeit weak), but I really would prefer to read the opinion of more experienced editors - frankieMR (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I am getting multiple book ghits for "Internet Review of Science Fiction", which indicates at least some degree of notability. It is mentioned as one of the best general-interest sites[10] and numerous published authors list this site among their credits. The topic seems worthwhile rescuing, so I tagged it.—RJH (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per comments above, especially the Locus Awards. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on sources found above. Many notable sites mention it, such as io9 [11] which states that it "helped set the gold standard for discussion of SF online". Various book results speak of it favorably as well. And it has won notable awards. If it wasn't notable, others wouldn't say such nice things about it, and cover its closing. Dream Focus 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 06:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that the Locus Awards for this SF magazine are sufficient to establish notability, along with the many SF authors making contributions, but I did not remove the notability tag while the AfD is pending. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the Locus Awards are important awards, this website was always at the bottom of those lists (which sometimes did not even reach 25, suggesting a lack of any believable candidates) and never was even among the first 10. The sources provided in the article are absolutely insufficient, consisting of the Locus listings, an editorial, a verbatim-rendered press release in Locus, an in-passing mention in Asimov's, and a link to an anthology by Gardner Dozois that (as far as I can see) does not even mention the IRSF. Only the tor.com piece is a little bit more substantive, but three rathjer short paragraphs does not really establish notability either. --Crusio (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2011 (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.