Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Orlowski


 * 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   keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Orlowski

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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 articles by him in The Register 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. Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * delete unless some WP:RS'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 WP:BLP, can defend this article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 (example), 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:
 * The New York Times describes him as "a British journalist who has written extensively on techno-utopianism."
 * This is significant coverage as the main topic, but not in a reliable source.
 * According to the Independent, Orlowski was "described in some quarters as a 'cult figure'".
 * Andrew Orlowski has been lampooned (but this is original research at the moment) in Cory Doctorow's novel Makers as "Freddy Niedbalski, a technology reporter for the notorious British technology publication Tech Stink" (see also).
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 notability. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The NY Times article HaeB mentions actually has three separate quotes from Orlowski regarding the Singularity, so it appears the Times columnist, Ashlee Vance, considered Orlowski to be a notable source for his article. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats not significant coverage... Is there any significant coverage about or of Orlowski? Outside quoting him, or mentioning him offhand in an articles not specifically about him? Ie. what i've seen so far is secondary mentioning, not significant coverage. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * To my mind, this pretty well answers the question of AO's notability. There are literally hundreds of cites of his columns in academia. Possibly more than his work merits, but there they are... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I found these 3rd-party RS mentions, not yet in the article:
 * Keep: Orlowski's pretty well-known in both the tech and climate-skeptic blogospheres -- but it's true he's short of third-party RS mentions., 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. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC) (changed !vote to Keep)
 * Guardian, 16 August 2008:
 * 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 with the Google boys.'
 * This quote was also used in the book Google speaks: secrets of the world's greatest billionaire entrepreneurs by Janet Lowe, page 9.
 * Orlowski made a presentation to the Innovation, Technology, and Spectrum Policy conference at George Mason University in 2006:
 * Information Economy Project


 * Orlowski was strongly criticized as "what I would call a professional troll" by Guardian columnist Paul Carr (writer),  in his  18 February 2009 column.


 * Orlowski wrote several articles (op-eds?) for the Guardian around 2006-2007, such as this one on Net Neutrality. We mention his Wikipedia Guardian piece already at his bio page.

Dmcq, you wrote at his wikibio talk page:
 * 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? Dmcq

Did you get a reply? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Journalism 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 specifically about him. Would a few statements like those perhaps establish notability of the person? Or should we look at what makes authors notable? Dmcq (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are an impressive number of citations of Orlowski's columns (mostly those in the Register) in books and scholarly publications. See, for example, this list of 15 cites of a 2003 Orlowski column "Most bloggers 'are teenage girls'–survey". There are hundreds more:, . So it does appear Orlowski's columns have had a significant influence over the years, especially in the scholarly literature. See what you think. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 forgotten to do the person himself. Dmcq (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right about the cites. I wonder if they know they are in essence citing a blog? Dmcq (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Who knows? With social-scientist types.... well, my bias towards the physical sciences is showing.
 * 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:
 * (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, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2011 (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.