Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Ousterhout
per focused, non-incidental coverage in reliable, bylined, secondary sources.  The article is somewhat poorly written, and could use more encyclopedic style, but AfD is not cleanup.  I find arguments that reliable secondary sources are not allowed to themselves use what we consider to be unreliable sources as their own sources to be unfounded, and against WP policy.  Reliable secondary sources are perfectly allowed to go to primary sources for their information, and in fact SHOULD do so.  Reliable secondary sources are perfectly allowed to evaluate and selectively integrate from sources non-independent to the subject, and in fact, should do so.  Multiple reliable bylined secondary sources are all that is required to establish notability, and we have that.  We not only have , but , and  as well.  I must !vote keep
— User:Fieari, 07:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BASIC||WP:GNG||WP:SCHOLAR (Wikipedia:Notability)