Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Salz (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to InterNetNews. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Rich Salz

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Rich Salz
• Articles for deletion/Rich Salz (2nd nomination)

Rich Salz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Sources included are either primary or only discuss the individual in passing. Possible COI editing, undisclosed (see recent history). Another holdout from an earlier age of Wikipedia—notability standards have changed. I could endorse a redirection to InterNetNews, with which he was involved, or something with the history of Usenet, but he has little to no biographical coverage outside of what can be adequately described in those articles. czar 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Not so sure. The article now is not very good. He has more contributions that just the news era, otherwise a merge would be a good choice. The whole OpenSSL work together with other stuff might count. I would lean to keep but can go along with consensus either way. W Nowicki (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• To reiterate, unless someone can actually prove that there is significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, a merge/redirect to InterNetNews, for which he is best known, would be better than keeping the article standalone, as we're only going off primary sources right now. The article doesn't get enough traffic to have a merge discussion and the little editor traffic it gets appears to be COI editing. czar 15:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to InterNetNews The subject is best known for InterNetNews and this is a BLP1E. The lack of significant coverage in reliable third party coverage means that we cannot really have a standalone article per WP:WHYN. I prefer a redirect here (with history intact). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to InterNetNews The subject was a major name in Usenet and is well known for InterNetNews, the dominant usenet server program. He's done a lot of good work on internet infrastructure, but I was unable to find much in the way of biographical information from independent reliable sources. That he was the creator of INN is amply verified in RS (check any RS on the technical history of Usenet), and it is plausible that his name would be searched for (the page gets about 7 hits a day), so a redirect to INN is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2016 (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.