194:
which he is the executive editor of and therefore the stuff isn't even under editorial control but just editorial. I don't there's anything there that couldn't be better put as editor under the register article, it could do with a bit more in it as it is pretty much a stub and it is actually notable.
578:
and nobody said anything in reply. I notice above this was notified for the authors project, perhaps that would have been more appropriate. There's two things in the list above about him, that he write a techno blog and that he's been criticized as a professional troll, which I would have said were
482:
Andrew
Orlowski, executive editor of the technology website The Register, says: 'The web is a secular religion at the moment and politicians go to pray at events like the Google Zeitgeist conference. Any politician who wants to brand himself as a forward-looking person will get himself photographed
617:
Thanks. There are a couple of books in those google returns which I believe have enough of a mention to satisfy notability. With the number of cites that easily does the trick I believe. I had looked up his name with climate change in Google books and found nothing useful and must have then just
189:
I can't find any significant coverage or even enough articles mentioning them of any sort of note. The notability reference there is something on his own site from a non reliable newspaper of which he used to be editor (it says quod vide as its standard). Practically all the hits with google are
344:
While i agree that reliability of the person is not an indication of notability, the trouble is that the article, as well as your sources, do not convey notability according to our guidelines. And that is the springing point here. We need secondary reliable sources that establish the persons
320:
552:
I'll ask at WikiProject
Journalism about this, do they have some special provision for notability in cases like this where there are hundreds of things on the web but they're practically all by the person himself?
158:
452:, and his columns have been cited hundreds of times in scholarly journals and books -- see my remarks at Tillman (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2011 below. This seems unequivocal evidence of Orlowski's notability. --
652:(draft) Orlowski's columns have been cited in hundreds of articles in academic journals (cite to Google Scholar). Some of the most widely-cited columns were (cites to specific columns at GSch.) --? TIA,
414:
Kim, did you get a chance to look through the impressive number of citations of
Orlowski's columns in scholarly journals and books? See my last comment, Tillman (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2011 below.
239:'s can be found that establish notability. The subjects own articles are certainly not enough to establish such. Furthermore, since we have no real secondary sources, i can't see how we, under
491:
284:
119:
283:
Undecided. First, I would like to note that while among many
Wikipedians (and not only them) Orlowski's writing has a bad reputation of being very polemic and factually unreliable (
212:
152:
261:
304:
593:
There are an impressive number of citations of
Orlowski's columns (mostly those in the Register) in books and scholarly publications. See, for example,
603:. So it does appear Orlowski's columns have had a significant influence over the years, especially in the scholarly literature. See what you think. --
579:
specifically about him. Would a few statements like those perhaps establish notability of the person? Or should we look at what makes authors notable?
575:
287:), this is not in itself an argument for deletion - notability is not a badge of merit, but a measure of the impact a person has had. Some points:
649:
Were you planning to add some of this stuff to the article? I'm not quite sure how to do the academic cites without the appearance of OR. Maybe:
396:
Orlowski? Outside quoting him, or mentioning him offhand in an articles not specifically about him? Ie. what i've seen so far is secondary
594:
92:
87:
96:
17:
79:
405:
354:
248:
173:
535:
140:
315:
688:
40:
297:
401:
350:
244:
367:
134:
661:
641:
627:
612:
588:
566:
522:
500:
461:
430:
409:
383:
358:
339:
275:
252:
224:
204:
130:
61:
319:
as "Freddy
Niedbalski, a technology reporter for the notorious British technology publication Tech Stink" (
684:
421:
of cites of his columns in academia. Possibly more than his work merits, but there they are... Cheers,
364:
36:
180:
601:
508:
83:
57:
517:
Orlowski was strongly criticized as "what I would call a professional troll" by
Guardian columnist
474:
166:
646:
Who knows? With social-scientist types.... well, my bias towards the physical sciences is showing.
518:
597:
of a 2003 Orlowski column "Most bloggers 'are teenage girls'–survey". There are hundreds more:
657:
608:
562:
499:
Orlowski made a presentation to the
Innovation, Technology, and Spectrum Policy conference at
457:
426:
379:
271:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
683:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
598:
146:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
240:
417:
To my mind, this pretty well answers the question of AO's notability. There are literally
303:
According to the
Independent, Orlowski was "described in some quarters as a 'cult figure'"
75:
67:
53:
291:
236:
637:
632:
You're right about the cites. I wonder if they know they are in essence citing a blog?
623:
584:
335:
220:
200:
534:
Orlowski wrote several articles (op-eds?) for the
Guardian around 2006-2007, such as
310:
309:
Andrew Orlowski has been lampooned (but this is original research at the moment) in
653:
604:
558:
453:
422:
375:
371:
267:
191:
113:
448:: Orlowski's pretty well-known in both the tech and climate-skeptic blogospheres
633:
619:
580:
331:
216:
196:
294:
as "a British journalist who has written extensively on techno-utopianism."
545:
538:. We mention his Knowledge (XXG) Guardian piece already at his bio page.
488:
Google speaks: secrets of the world's greatest billionaire entrepreneurs
300:
is significant coverage as the main topic, but not in a reliable source.
388:
Thats not significant coverage... Is there any significant coverage
677:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
366:
actually has three separate quotes from Orlowski regarding the
374:, considered Orlowski to be a notable source for his article.
468:
I found these 3rd-party RS mentions, not yet in the article:
450:-- but it's true he's short of third-party RS mentions.
109:
105:
101:
165:
576:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Journalism#Andrew_Orlowski
179:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
691:). No further edits should be made to this page.
213:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
8:
262:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
260:Note: This debate has been included in the
211:Note: This debate has been included in the
259:
210:
486:This quote was also used in the book
370:, so it appears the Times columnist,
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
618:forgotten to do the person himself.
363:The NY Times article HaeB mentions
24:
400:, not significant coverage. --
1:
662:00:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
642:21:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
628:20:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
613:05:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
589:23:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
567:20:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
462:20:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
431:20:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
410:12:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
384:03:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
359:19:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
340:18:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
276:14:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
253:13:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
243:, can defend this article. --
225:11:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
205:11:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
62:11:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
509:Information Economy Project
708:
557:Did you get a reply? TIA,
536:this one on Net Neutrality
680:Please do not modify it.
475:Guardian, 16 August 2008
32:Please do not modify it.
501:George Mason University
483:with the Google boys.'
464:(changed !vote to Keep)
595:this list of 15 cites
546:his wikibio talk page
574:The question is at
544:Dmcq, you wrote at
290:The New York Times
190:articles by him in
519:Paul Carr (writer)
48:The result was
278:
265:
227:
699:
682:
523:18 February 2009
266:
184:
183:
169:
117:
99:
34:
707:
706:
702:
701:
700:
698:
697:
696:
695:
689:deletion review
678:
490:by Janet Lowe,
402:Kim D. Petersen
351:Kim D. Petersen
245:Kim D. Petersen
126:
90:
76:Andrew Orlowski
74:
71:
68:Andrew Orlowski
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
705:
703:
694:
693:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
647:
630:
555:
554:
542:
541:
540:
539:
529:
528:
527:
526:
512:
511:
506:
505:
504:
496:
495:
480:
479:
478:
466:
465:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
415:
327:
326:
325:
324:
307:
301:
295:
280:
279:
256:
255:
229:
228:
187:
186:
123:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
704:
692:
690:
686:
681:
675:
663:
659:
655:
651:
650:
648:
645:
644:
643:
639:
635:
631:
629:
625:
621:
616:
615:
614:
610:
606:
602:
599:
596:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
577:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
551:
550:
549:
547:
537:
533:
532:
531:
530:
524:
520:
516:
515:
514:
513:
510:
507:
502:
498:
497:
493:
489:
485:
484:
481:
476:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
444:
443:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
348:
343:
342:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
322:
318:
317:
312:
311:Cory Doctorow
308:
305:
302:
299:
296:
293:
292:describes him
289:
288:
286:
282:
281:
277:
273:
269:
263:
258:
257:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
231:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
209:
208:
207:
206:
202:
198:
193:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:Find sources:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
679:
676:
654:Pete Tillman
605:Pete Tillman
559:Pete Tillman
556:
543:
487:
467:
454:Pete Tillman
449:
445:
423:Pete Tillman
418:
397:
393:
389:
376:Pete Tillman
372:Ashlee Vance
346:
314:
235:unless some
232:
192:The Register
188:
176:
170:
162:
155:
149:
143:
137:
127:
49:
47:
31:
28:
521:, in his
368:Singularity
153:free images
398:mentioning
347:notability
54:Tom Morris
685:talk page
330:Regards,
313:'s novel
268:• Gene93k
37:talk page
687:or in a
503:in 2006:
419:hundreds
321:see also
120:View log
39:or in a
525:column.
285:example
159:WP refs
147:scholar
93:protect
88:history
492:page 9
316:Makers
241:WP:BLP
233:delete
131:Google
97:delete
390:about
237:WP:RS
174:JSTOR
135:books
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
658:talk
638:talk
634:Dmcq
624:talk
620:Dmcq
609:talk
585:talk
581:Dmcq
563:talk
553:Dmcq
458:talk
446:Keep
427:talk
406:talk
380:talk
355:talk
349:. --
336:talk
332:HaeB
298:This
272:talk
249:talk
221:talk
217:Dmcq
201:talk
197:Dmcq
167:FENS
141:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
50:keep
392:or
181:TWL
118:– (
52:. —
660:)
640:)
626:)
611:)
600:,
587:)
565:)
548::
460:)
429:)
408:)
394:of
382:)
357:)
338:)
323:).
274:)
264:.
251:)
223:)
215:.
203:)
161:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
656:(
636:(
622:(
607:(
583:(
561:(
494:.
477::
456:(
425:(
404:(
378:(
353:(
334:(
306:.
270:(
247:(
219:(
199:(
185:)
177:·
171:·
163:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
133:(
125:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.