Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Anderson (programmer)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Anderson (programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Perhaps best to make this a redirect to Zork. If anyone wants to add enough details to justify a stand-alone biographical article that option would remain available. CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep doing a WP:BEFORE finds some passable sources [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Working on WP:HEY'ing article IceBergYYC (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator: The reason I nominated this article wasn't because it wasn't sourced, but because it basically said nothing about the individual past "creating Zork". Thus, my suggestion to redirect to Zork. I still don't see why this person merits an article if we can't find any sources actually discussing the subject. As for co-founding Infocom, well, not all of the co-founders have their own Wiki page. What I'm trying to say is: while I commend your work to save articles from deletion, so far I don't see any addition that convinces me the article merits keeping. However, I realize that being notable for two things (both creating Zork and co-founding Infocom) likely will make some editors not want to have to decide where to redirect. CapnZapp (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded again. I feel that now in its current state it's likely enough to stand alone. IceBergYYC (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article has been significantly improved, looks to have sufficient referencing to support article quality and notability. - Indefensible (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sufficient, sourced information on a clearly notable person. Kind regards, Grueslayer 05:49, 3 July 2023 (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.