User talk:Fl1n7

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Fl1n7! I am Collectonian and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind welcome and advice
Fl1n7 (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Nathan Lowell

I have nominated Nathan Lowell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Lowell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their criteria, I think they're probably right to delete it. I'm not sure what that says about the rest of the podcast authors, altho more of them have online track records than I do. Thanks for thinking of me, but by their rules of "notability" -- the fact that nobody outside our echo chamber has written about me in what they construe as an appropriately authoritative source -- I think they're making a logical case. I can't even verify my birthdate because it's not a matter of public record anywhere. Nlowell 2010 (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hello & welcome to WP. I looked at the Nathan Lowell page and it looks like a great start with room for expansion. I hope if it's deleted for notability that you don't let that discourage you from working on it and starting new pages.

You might want to look closely at the following: WP:Notability (people) basic criteria and WP:Entertainer section 2. Your subject does not have to have tons of publicity for you to win a debate about notability. However, part of the spirit of notability is verifiability; if you have enough to show one, you can probably show the other. Feel free to email me from my user page. --Sainge.spin (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. The problem with notability is authority. And while there are dozens of reviews, lots of interviews, itunes rankings, and podiobook stuff, none of that is considered authority. Wikipedia accepts one convention awarded prize (Hugo) based on membership popularity voting because it's been around long enough to become an authority in itself. Conceptually, it should have less authority than the Parsec (which is a paneled, peer-review based award) but the difference is longevity and acceptance in the field. Look at the full guidelines on notability. Get the Parsec Award the same authority as the Hugo, and you'll be able to use that as a secondary source. Or get Ken Burns to do a documentary on my life. :D Nlowell 2010 (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost cause

It was a valiant attempt, but I don't think we're gonna win this one. As I noted on the Podcast novel discussion, Wikipedia is not concerned with what is, only with what can be constructed using "verifiable" resources. Crazy ideas like their verifiable resources may be invalid are not to be considered. That the construct of "podcast novel" clearly exists, that we all recognize it as a unique and distinct entity, and that it is clearly a growing phenomenon is not sufficient to establish it in the world that Wikipedia describes. Erroneous claims - like those in the Iain Banks piece -- will continue to dominate so long as consensus reality is based solely on verifiable sources. It may be that, as a participant in this movement, I am unable to write about it with the required detachment. Knowing what the reality is handicaps my ability to focus only on what can be verified and makes it exceptionally difficult to suppress the BS Detector. The field itself is too new to have made it into the scholarly literature very widely and virtually all of that literature is behind firewalls and subscriptions. And at least 3/4s of it is pure garbage from a methodological perspective. The mainstream literature on the subject is worse as too many of the articles are based on press releases and not on the kinds of research that one really needs. The Iain Banks piece is a prime example.

So, thanks for the side trip, but this is a waste of time for me. I need to get back to editing my existing podiobooks to prepare them for paper publication. Good luck in your future efforts. Nlowell 2010 (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]