Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Gillespie

: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. Seems like most everyone agrees these two are notable. Closing early per WP:SNOW. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

=[[Bruce Gillespie]]=

:{{la|Bruce Gillespie}} ([{{fullurl:Bruce Gillespie|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Gillespie}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

I am not convinced that science fiction fans are notable even if they get nominated for awards for best fanzine. This could lead to articles on soccer or Neighbours fans. Grahame (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is similar.

:{{la|John Bangsund}}

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Keep for Gillespie: fan writers are a more important part of the science fiction world than in most parts of popular culture. If the article is right, he hasn't just been nominated, he's won awards (although only nominations for the Hugo). Keep for Bangsund: similar notability to Gillespie as a fan writer; but an additional claim to notability with Muphry's law. Would it not be helpful to split up the two deletion proposals? N p holmes (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

:Add that Gillespie has an entry on p. 137 of the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Literature by Brian M. Stableford, (Scarecrow Press: 2004) ISBN 0810849380 N p holmes (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete This person was not nominated for any kind of prestigious award and turns up no results in search engines such as google news (just a bunch of people with his last name). Because of these factors, I think that the person fails human notability criteria. — ^.^ [citation needed] 08:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep (both) Three Hugo Award nominations, a 2007 Chandler Award win, and a whole bunch of Ditmar Award wins for Gillespie? Three Hugo noms, three Ditmar noms, plus a Ditmar win and a 2001 Chandler Award win for Bangsund? These are all notable awards and thus both subjects clearly meet notability. (And these nominations should have been split.) - Dravecky (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Bruce Gillespie, clearly passes WP:CREATIVE, at a bare minimum he meets the requirements of: has won significant critical attention and has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment in a case like this one I suppose it always comes back to: can we write a verifiable article based on reliable sources? Although winning awards can help indicate if reliable sources are bound to be available, it does not mean that an article can be written. Where can we find third party reliable sources about this person? I am not sure where the best place to look is, the only relevant resource I have available is a newspaper database (Factiva). I found some mentions of this person, but nothing substantial enough to write an article:

:*About the 57th World Science Fiction Convention: "Guests of honour are [...] Australian critic and fan Bruce Gillespie", Canberra Times, 22 August 1999

:*About The MUP encyclopaedia of Australian science fiction & fantasy: "Graham Stone [...] receives a relatively truncated entry, as does editor, writer and publisher Bruce Gillespie, Canberra Times, 12 September 1998

:*He has a quote and is introduced as: "Bruce Gillespie, publisher of SF Commentary magazine since 1969" in the Courier-Mail, 27 April 2002

:Someone should follow up the entry in The MUP encyclopaedia.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

::The Stableford reference I gave above provides more or less exactly the thin data that the Wikipedia article has (minus the award details). You can see it on Google books. Searching Google books with search terms "Gillespie", "Brian" and "Science Fiction" turns up a huge mass of references – it's just hard to sort out casual references or non reliable sources. Another reference work (one of several) which seems to have an entry (though you can't look at it on Google books) is Peter Nicholls, Science Fiction Encyclopedia Doubleday 1979, p. 253. N p holmes (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Thanks for Google books tip :-) There more I look at the article the more it seems a short entry based on these sci-fi encyclopedia entries is suitable for Wikipedia (and hopefully someone will come along and source the article as soon as possible). The list of awards may not be found in a source and may have to be removed though.--Commander Keane (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I've added refs for the Hugos, the Chandler Award was already there, the Ditmars can be referenced here [http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/DitmarNomList.html#1955], though there's no convenient point in the article at the moment on which to hang the reference. N p holmes (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, article satisfies relevant notability standards. Ottre 15:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - both have won enough awards to be notable.PamD (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep both. This had me at Hugo Awards. Just because someone is a "fan" that doesn't disqualify them from notability. See, for example, Bjo Trimble. I feel doing a double nomination is inappropriate for these sorts of individuals. Fortunately in this case their notability is satisfied through similar means. 23skidoo (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep being nominated for an obscure Hugo 3 times is like being nominated for an obscure Oscar 3 times. Clearly passes GNG. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly notable through award wins. The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Week keep. Barely scrapes through. Those awards haven't themselves been demonstrated as notable, and the award articles don't carry significant reliable sources. Gillespie himself was once asked for comment during an ABC radio interview regarding the death of Arthur C Clarke ([http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2194632.htm link]). However, it barely shows Gillespie's notability.--Lester 02:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

: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.