Deletion of Samizdat: And Other Issues Regarding the 'Source' of Open Source Code

Comment: per {{u|Lesser Cartographies}} this was a big story, at least among journalists interested in Linux and operating system kernels. I don't agree that emails should be excluded. An email from Dennis Ritchie may be used as a source of information about Dennis Ritchie, in an article about him (). Although inline references are preferable, there is no requirement saying that they must be inline (). –&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:SELFSOURCE||WP:GENREF)

Comment: For purposes of this discussion, I added a iting sources#Convenience_links|convenience link to the story, as the original is paywalled. I'll replace it with the official url later, once we confirm that the WSJ story is in fact about the report. –&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: There are two inline citations in the whole article. As I brought up on the article's Talk:Samizdat: And Other Issues Regarding the 'Source' of Open Source Code|talk page, I'm not sure Linux Insider is a . It looks like a niche online publication, and it's not apparently notable enough itself for a Wikipedia article. The IT Pro source doesn't mention the Samizdat article, so it's not sufficient to establish notability, and is probably  to include since it doesn't specifically mention the subject of the article. There are a number of external links (I trimmed quite a few, including some that were links to emails). However, as I said in nominating this article, there aren't currently sufficient reliable sources in the article to establish notability. If you are aware of such , please add them to the article as inline citations. The original article appeared to me to be very biased and in violation of . That's why I sought to clean it up, and in so doing, I've had difficulty establishing notability, which is why I ultimately nominated this article for deletion. Sentences like "The book was greeted with almost universal derision by the technical world and was repudiated by many of its claimed sources," especially with no sourcing, are unencyclopedic and do give the impression of an attack page. I'm not saying it was your intention to create an attack page, but the original article was in violation of quite a few of Wikipedia's guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:COATRACK||WP:RS||WP:NPOV)