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. Deor (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Salz

[edit]
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)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. "Citations" are to the subject's own bio page (obviously WP:PRIMARY) at the company he works for that provides training in XML, the entire(!) mod.sources and comp.sources.unix newsgroups and to a mysterious downloads page. Googling, I found a few patents (but patents are also primary documents and do not contribute to notability, sorry), but nothing on the web that wasn't primary and nothing at all in either books or scholar. Additionally, though not a reason to delete, the article appears to be promotional and to have the subject's involvement. Msnicki (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. On reflection, I've decided that several of you have made compelling arguments for notability, which is all we consider at AfD, based on WP:CREATIVE, that "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work", namely INN. I'm also going to strike my criticism of the content, though the sourcing is still just awful. Since one editor did offer weak support, I don't believe I'm allowed to close this myself, per WP:WDAFD, but perhaps someone else will kindly do it. Thank you all. Msnicki (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar gives 227 hits, most of which are for the person discussed here. 317 hits for books - same comment. The existing topic is a stub, and given the sources available is factual (some specific comment supporting the "promotional" might be in order here - likewise the "involvement" part doesn't appear to necessarily be factual - only if you are relying on additional information not so far presented). TEDickey (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the Google hits appear to be basically one-sentence mentions of his news server. Re: scholar, I shouldn't have said there was nothing. What I should have said is that I didn't find anything helpful. I didn't find anything that would appear to satisfy creative professionals. His top-cited paper only got 344 cites, which isn't a lot. An important scholarly paper gets over 1000 cites at least. Msnicki (talk)
I don't find your response constructive. TEDickey (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've provided several citations where "citation needed" occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.100.227 (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several of the Google hits [1] refer to scholarly papers presented by Rich Salz at conferences. There are also a couple of books on Amazon [2] that refer to his authorship of INN (over multiple editions). Its true that most of his papers don't have a lot of scholarly citations, his largest contributions were to Usenet and you can tell by his 25,000+ posts and references on usenet [3], that he was very active indeed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwexler2 (talk contribs) 19:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References
  1. ^ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=rich+salz+-dental+-drosophila&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
  2. ^ http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=rich+salz+inn&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Arich+salz+inn
  3. ^ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/rich$20salz
None of this is helpful in establishing notability. Setting aside that we don't cite searches, we cite individual sources, your first link is to a Google scholar search that turns up a few minor papers mention Rich Salz. But it's obvious by inspection that these aren't articles about Salz, they're articles about software topics (open source and news servers) that merely mention his name. The link to an Amazon search is even less helpful: We simply don't cite Amazon. Moreover, it's same two books over and over in different editions with the same one-sentence mention. The USENET search is also unhelpful, both because anything Salz posted is WP:PRIMARY and because posts by others to USENET are not a reliable source: It's all self-published and there's absolutely no editorial control. Msnicki (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite any sources that discuss him in detail as required by WP:GNG? I don't think so. Msnicki (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone who knows the Usenet since the early 1980s would confirm that Rich Salz is a very notable person and there should be plenty of material in the usenet archives. BTW: a few years ago, I was doing some research on his Usenet posts from that time and IIRC, I discovered posts that use the term OpenSource movement before the name Free Software movement appeared. It may be worth to search for this again. Schily (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but WP:FAME isn't a guidelines-based reason to keep. What the guidelines ask is not that a topic seem notable, but others have actually taken note and that they've done in reliable, independent, secondary sources. The guidelines also ask that these sources must address the subject in detail. Those sources don't exist. A lot is known and lot has been written about INN and other projects the subject has written or worked on, but not much about him personally that isn't WP:PRIMARY.
Further, notability is not inherited. It's just not that unusual for a creative professional's work to far more notable than the individual. A lot more has been written about the Golden Gate bridge than whoever (A, B and C, in case you're curious) designed it. Personally, I think that's as it should be, that your work should be better known than you are. Consider the alternative.
I agree the subject is well-known in the community in connection with some notable projects. And I wouldn't be surprised if we hear from a few more people making this argument, given this tweet. Mr. Salz also figured out (not hard) who I am in RL to ask via LinkedIn why the animus. Honestly, there is none. There's nothing personal. But LinkedIn is the place for your resume, not here, unless we can find enough coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to write the article.
Here's I what I suggest. Merge is always an option at AfD. At a minimum, sources clearly support ensuring that his authorship is identified in articles about things he's worked on or contributed to. If a target article (the obvious would be InterNetNews) could be agreed, perhaps some of this content could be merged there. But as it is, I don't believe sources exist to support a separate article. If the outcome is delete, perhaps someone might volunteer to WP:USERFY it while attempts are made to find better sources. Msnicki (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is a creative professional, though, and these can be assessed by how many refer to their work. WP:Prof does not cover academics only. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I added a reference where Salz was quoted in Computerworld recently, and one from a History of the Internet on INN. Lentower (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the Computerworld article, that's not actually a secondary source on Salz even though the publication itself is certainly independent (no connection to Salz), reliable and has reputation for editorial control.
To qualify as a WP:SECONDARY source, it must provide "an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The Computerworld article was reporting the news of the recent OpenSSL bug and an announcement by the CTO at Akami in company blog that Akamai would be reissuing all SSL certificates and keys. About halfway down, they report that Salz, who works at Akamai, has made two blogs posts with some additional technical information about what Akamai was doing.
Computerworld is simply reporting the news and identities of their sources. If they'd reported here's what Salz said, but here's what we think, editorial style, no question, that would have been secondary. But there's none of that analysis here. More to the point, it's not helpful for establishing notability because we require sources offering significant coverage, not just lots of trivial mentions. From WP:GNG, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" and the Computerworld article doesn't do that. Msnicki (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source you added is a hypertext version of the USENET News How-to, but awkwardly via FTP. The same thing is available as a single page here. The subject's name is mentioned twice as the author of INN, 3 times as the author of a paper on INN, once for having had "issues" with C News, stated in his paper, and once because it's his email address. That is all it ever reveals about the subject. Never mind that this isn't a reliable source (one with editorial control), it doesn't address the subject himself in detail.
Last quarter, I overheard a couple students in our EE lab grousing that they'd been asked on a test who invented the transistor. (There are EEs who don't know those names? Or am I just old?) My point is that the world does seem to care more about how engineers change the world than to know or write much about us personally. It's reflected in the sources in this case as in many others: Lots of sources establishing the notability of INN and consistently acknowledging his authorship, but none offering any additional information about him, personally.
If the only article we can write about the subject based solely on reliable independent secondary sources is, "Rich Salz is the author of INN and has contributed to HTTP, SOAP, WSDL and several other protocol stacks", before having to turn to WP:PRIMARY sources and WP:OR to say anything more, then we just don't have enough here to justify the separate article. From WP:WHYN, "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Msnicki (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're complaining about a lack of secondary sources and notoriety from a time when the value of these contributions wasn't yet recognized. What purpose is this sort of strict deletionist attitude intended to serve? The guy's impact on our ability to communicate on the Internet was massive. He reduced dissemination time of community articles from minutes and hours to seconds. In that sense he made USENET a serious precursor to facebook. Did anyone write about that? Not in academic journals and newspapers, and also because facebook didn't exist. And yet we stand on the shoulders of those before us, and not on their backs.Pigdog234 (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind. On reflection, I've decided you and others have made a good argument for notability based on WP:CREATIVE. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You seem to have a powerful personal belief that it is better that creators be less visible than creations (e.g., your comments above about Kim Kardashian). But others are quite interested in the people and history behind things in their world. Your moral belief about the role of the creator vs. the created is not a principle of Wikipedia. It may motivate you to remove a spotlight on creators -- this seems to be a recurring theme of your AfD's -- but others are interested in documenting the history of technology and science. Being notable for the notable things you've done is still being notable. The person *thought* to have designed the largest pyramid has his own page because it's notable that he is *thought* to have done something notable. (And, to be fair, because of his statue, and Rich Salz has no statue afaik.) That page says less about him than Salz's article says about Salz. It seems strange to argue that Salz did notable things, wrote notable things, but that these are facts about a human being is not notable.Kcrca (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personal and I wish you wouldn't make it so. Other kinds of arguments work better with me. See above. Msnicki (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed to me that it was personal to you, your arguments seem personal in nature (what you heard, Kardashian vs. real creators). That was a primary point of my response, that as I read your arguments they were about a personal viewpoint that you were reflecting by AfD, rather than a neutral application of basic principles. I don't think you have a personal vendetta about Salz, if that's what you mean. (If by "personal", you mean that you feel your character or morality attacked, I would truly apologize since that is far from my thoughts.)Kcrca (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's personal when you talk about me rather my arguments. It's just not helpful, especially when I'm trying to concede the debate anyway. Have a little grace. (I was already composing my withdrawal before you posted and had an edit conflict with you, so your comments weren't a part of my decision.) Msnicki (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can have had no idea that you were conceding while I was writing. But I'd like to say I wasn't talking about you personally, but about how your arguments seemed to be about your personal judgements instead of WP principles. I might even agree with your principles, but they shouldn't drive the argument. I can see how saying this might be heard as "You have bad personal judgements", which would be about you personally, but it was about how the form of the argument -- which seemed unduly based on personal preferences about the world -- reflected upon the value of the proposal. If I wasn't clear (or am not clear here) about the distinction, I'm sorry.Kcrca (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More