Category talk:Science fiction fans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This category was nominated for deletion, renaming, or merging with another category on 2007 June 24. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] New name

Shouldn't this category be renamed as something like "science fiction artists" to keep it from being ridiculously over-populated? Treybien 22:20 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't authors of SF be excluded from this list? I think it's clear that they must like the genre. This category should be for fans who aren't heavily involved in writing, editing, filming, etc .of the genre, unless, for some reason, they are especially notable as fans. Bradbury, for example, should probably go, but Ellison clearly belongs here (as a former fanzine editor).

[edit] Criteria for inclusion

In order to keep this category useful, it is important to understand who belongs in it, and who does not belong.

This category is intended to identify those biographies whose subject has done something verifiable as an amateur in relation to general Science Fiction Fandom, and of sufficient importance to be of some general interest. The fannish activity must be mentioned (and sourced) explicitly in the article and should be of sufficient importance that its inclusion should not be questioned by reasonable editors.

This is not the place to list Professional authors, publishers and professional organizers of for-profit conventions: they belong in a different category. Exceptions should be rare and unambiguous. This is also not the place to categorize a biographied person who mentions somewhere in passing that he reads SF. If there is a distinct and more specific category (i.e. Star trek fans), it should be used instead.

Obviously, the person must satisfy the WP:BIO criteria in order to have a biography in the first place, and equally obviously, nothing in this section trumps WP:V or WP:NPOV.

Examples of reasons for inclusion in this category include the following.

• Any person whose fannish activities alone satisfy the WP:BIO criteria.
• Unambiguous self-identification as a fan by a major media figure.
• Identification by a major author or director as a fan who has influenced a work of sufficient importance to qualify participants under WP:BIO.
• Organizing a Worldcon or other major convention or several minor ones.
• Being named "Fan of the year" at a major convention.
• Publishing a fanzine of 500 or more circulation for a year or more.
• Publishing a smaller fanzine with verifiable influence beyond its readership.
• Long-term involvement in managing not-for-profit corporations that support fannish activities.

Submitted for comment and, I hope, consensus. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria talk

I think these criteria are wonderful, and add some sanity to any future maintenance of such a category. Overall they reflect points of verifiablity and notability - crucial for wikipedia. I have a slight problem with the second criterium: if Ralph Nadar says in USA Today that he is a science fiction fan, should that mean that he gets a "sci fi fan" cat at the bottom of his page? I guess my main point is that simply being a sci fi fan is not notable. I definitely see the value of this category, but only for fans notable for being fans.--Esprit15d 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If the category is kept, it should be renamed. Splitting it into scifi publishers & convention-people might help. A cat's criteria should not require this much explanation – the title is the only thing that shows in the articles and should accurately describe the set of people you're talking about. The current title implies very inclusive criteria. ×Meegs 14:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If Ralph Nader really wants to self-identify as a fan, I don't see that it is Wikipedia's business to contradict him. I understand your comment about the length of explanation, but I find it hard to believe that this is the only category with threshold issues. We don't include Paris Hilton under Category:Poets, even though she has verifiably read some gawd-awful stuff on late night TV, yet no one proposes renaming to Category:Widely Published Poets. The threshold text I added to the category page seems pretty obvious to me, and probably is to anyone involved in fandom. The talk text above is an attempt to be more specific if anyone wants that. What else do you suggest that would be nearly so useful?Robert A.West (Talk) 05:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)