Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Lowell


 * 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   delete.  Sandstein  06:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nathan Lowell

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unnotable "writer" of self-published serialized podcast novels Only coverage in reliable sources are his own publisher and the University organization he is associated with. The novels were finalists at a single science fiction convention's awards, and he won a blog's award. None of these, however, are major awards. As such, Mr. Lowell appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:PROFESSOR. The author himself appears to also agree that he is not notable. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

-- Fl1n7 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment When Nathan Lowell's books are actually published will that meet the notability guidelines? I know that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but his first book is due to be published later this year. If having a published book does meet the notability guidelines, then perhaps the best course of action is to delete the article and then repost it once the book has been released. If having a published book does not meet the notability guidelines, then maybe the article does need to be deleted. It would make me sad, as I am a big fan of Nathan Lowell's work, but I also do not want to let my personal opinions get in the way of Wikipedia's rules.
 * No. Simply being published does not make you notable. He must have significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Now, if his book makes him famous, gets him ton of press coverage (not just press releases, mind you), then maybe he will eventually gain some notability, however as of now, he is not notable and his book coming out will not change that in and of itself. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if this article does not meet the guidelines, I guess it should be removed. It makes me sad, as I am a fan of Nathan Lowell. This is the first Wikipedia article that I wrote; I guess that I should have read the guidelines more thoroughly. So, if this article is removed I won't make a fuss. But don't count on it being gone forever. I have had a closer read of the notability guidelines now (something I admit I should have done sooner). I would not be at all surprised if Dr. Nathan Lowell meets the guidelines at a point not too far in the future. His work his certainly good enough. Maybe when his book is published some of the big time reviewers will write about it and that will count as a reliable third party source. One can always hope.-- Fl1n7 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If its deleted, you can also ask the deleting admin to "userfy" it, in which a copy is put in your user sandbox for you to work on over time to see if Notability can be established later. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already saved a text file with the wikitext of the article to my hard drive. I will have it ready to work on when more third party sources become available. -- Fl1n7 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability guidelines seem pretty clear on this. I can't imagine ever getting "notable" enough to qualify. I couldn't even validate my place and date of birth because they're not on a linkable record anywhere and it's not like the NY Times is gonna be knocking on my door any time soon. Thanks for the thought, but ... even I can't see it. Nlowell 2010 (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I have seen of other authors articles on Wikipedia, one or two book reviews should be enough to eliminate any complaints about not having any verifiable third party sources. Those other author pages do not seem to have any complaints and they have been around for years. So it might happen. -- Fl1n7 (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not quite. Book reviews may offer notability on the book, but that does not offer notability on the author. Yes, many have slipped in, but when found they are eventually sent here as well and usually deleted. Keep in mind that Wikipedia has millions of articles, and only a few thousand editors, and only small percentage of those are active editors who deal with those kind of issues, versus those who edit sporadically or, like yourself, came to edit the page of someone they admire. :-) -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as not (yet) notable, per discussion above - time for someone cast an actual !vote. JohnCD (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2010 (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.