The result was keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google book and news searches on the title bring up zero results. Only claim to notability in the article is a few notable members which does not necessarily transfer to the organization itself. RadioFan ( talk) 02:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment One particular user seems to have an axe to grind against this one entry. There seems to be no other support for deletion. 128.205.230.94 ( talk) 22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
'Keep and Comment' No, actually there is no evidence of good faith here, and demonstrable evidence of a Vendetta. As of 04:22 02/27 there have been more than a dozen 3rd party mentions of the club provided, however RadioFan continues to insist thirteen hours later than nothing other than the club website exists. I have clicked each link provided and verified that each page does indeed contain a reference to the site. I do not see a good faith discussion here, rather it would appear that facts are irrelevant to the case. If you want to return this to a good faith discussion, then I would suggest that you remove RadioFan's persistent denials and answer to the multitude of 3rd party references provided. 99.92.91.191 ( talk) 07:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep and Comment This article most certainly needs work, but BASFA appears to be notable. The problem seems to be that a few notable items (such as the Hugo recommendation list) are not included in the article, let alone sources for them. If no one minds and if I get a chance after editing another article I'm working on, I will try to help clean up the article myself. I'm a neutral editor, which I mention only because conflict of interest issues have already been brought up. Clockster ( talk) 04:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google book and news searches on the title bring up zero results. Only claim to notability in the article is a few notable members which does not necessarily transfer to the organization itself. RadioFan ( talk) 02:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment One particular user seems to have an axe to grind against this one entry. There seems to be no other support for deletion. 128.205.230.94 ( talk) 22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
'Keep and Comment' No, actually there is no evidence of good faith here, and demonstrable evidence of a Vendetta. As of 04:22 02/27 there have been more than a dozen 3rd party mentions of the club provided, however RadioFan continues to insist thirteen hours later than nothing other than the club website exists. I have clicked each link provided and verified that each page does indeed contain a reference to the site. I do not see a good faith discussion here, rather it would appear that facts are irrelevant to the case. If you want to return this to a good faith discussion, then I would suggest that you remove RadioFan's persistent denials and answer to the multitude of 3rd party references provided. 99.92.91.191 ( talk) 07:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep and Comment This article most certainly needs work, but BASFA appears to be notable. The problem seems to be that a few notable items (such as the Hugo recommendation list) are not included in the article, let alone sources for them. If no one minds and if I get a chance after editing another article I'm working on, I will try to help clean up the article myself. I'm a neutral editor, which I mention only because conflict of interest issues have already been brought up. Clockster ( talk) 04:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply