Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Dickey

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 Lynx (web browser). KaisaL (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dickey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

According to the Discussion on the Talk Page, the software developer is not notable to warrant an article, as there are not enough reliable secondary sources about him. Currently there is a redirect to one of his 9 software projects on Wikipedia. The article Lynx (web browser) doesn't contain any information about the developer. I suggest to remove this redirect, as it serves no purpose. Arved (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree, there is not enough to support an article and redirect isn't helpful. Msnicki (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination and other comments.SurpriseandConquer (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this editor has been checkuser blocked. ——SN 54129 09:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not sure either the nom or the two delete !voters make particularly strong arguments for their cases. I note that the lynx article has mentioned Dickey for over eleven years, and a redirect seems not unreasonable.
I agree that the original article was rightly overwritten: A ~20 word, two sentence, self-sourced stub does not a BLP make. But redirects, as they say, are notably WP:CHEAP, and I'm interested to learn why the WP:READER, searching for information on the guy, shouldn't be taken to the nearest thing he's known for... ——SN 54129 09:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On edit: adding firm redirect !vote, now that the article has been restored. ——SN 54129 12:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, what is the nearest thing. He has several projects with articles on Wikipedia, and in my opinion ncurses or xterm are much more important than lynx. Arved (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per my original edit on this article and SN54129 above. Couldn't find any references, but if he's mentioned somewhere else then why not redirect. Sam Walton (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Not independently notable but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Plausible search term that should lead to notable project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. If the article doesn't mention him, fix that instead. --Jayron 32 16:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as essentially a disambiguation page. He maintains (and has contributed to in essential ways) several pieces of notable software. If they were books, then WP:NCREATIVE would certainly apply, and I think something similar should hold here. I agree that there's not enough for much of an article, but as Arved says, xterm and ncurses are also significant software, so redirecting to lynx is not indicated. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2020 (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.