Deletion of Pat Villani

Comment: as per nom. Keeping this page would seem to me as allowing it only for a memorial page.  If this individual merited a page it should have happened within the last 10+ years.  As above,  must be considered, and I believe this page is only just that.  I see very little room for growth, given what I could find online, I wouldn't even consider the existing information as a stub, due to the overal lack of significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:memorial)

Comment: In comments to other statements above I have given some explanation why I find this subject to be notable although it does not seem to be easy to find a reliable source directly supporting Villani's notability in short time. My argumentation above is an indirect one along the line that FreeDOS is a notable work (proved formally) and Villani as the original developer of the FreeDOS kernel has thereby become notable as well (or "is likely to be notable" as  puts it). Nevertheless, it would be better to have reliable sources directly mentioning him, not only his work - they may exist, but I could not find them online so far. It has been suggested to wait a while to see if it will be covered in the press once the "news" spreads. It has also been suggested to merge the contents into the FreeDOS article (or user page) and redirect Pat Villani to FreeDOS, something I would support as well if the Villani article would otherwise be deleted, however, I would still prefer it to remain a separate article with a scope different from what can be done in the FreeDOS article. As I see it, his biographical details would hardly belong in the FreeDOS article, and we may be able to flesh this out a little over time. The Villani article could also have a short section on how DOS-C came into existance and later became the FreeDOS kernel, and it could discuss Villani's achievement in developing a DOS-compatible kernel in a high-level language such as C (instead of in assembly language, which would have been a more natural choice from the viewpoint of DOS system-level development). Nevertheless, I don't envision the article to ever become longer than perhaps one or two pages, unless Villani would be known also for other public achievements besides his fundamental involvement with FreeDOS. I can't comment on this, as I knew him from the FreeDOS project only. If the article is not deleted, I would be willing to contribute some bits to it over the course of months and add some references, but it might be a wasted effort for as long as a Damocles sword such as AfD hangs above the article. Therefore, I'd like to learn the other commentors' view on this, especially those who suggested a deletion. Do you still strictly feel the article should be deleted or do you now, with possibly a bit more background on Villani's involvement with FreeDOS, see some form of notability (although it would still require some degree of goodwill in the interpretation of the policies as it stands so far
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: as above.  I also echo JFHJr's sentiments.  Far from being "boring" or "obscure," the requirement that articles be reliably sourced is front and center as |Wikipedia's fundamental, irreductible core policy, and anyone who after four years on Wikipedia finds it too much effort to follow is - frankly - not an asset to the encyclopedia.  (The article's creator, after all, went no more "way out of his way" to create the article than have tens of thousands of anonymous editors in creating theirs.)  It is not Wikipedia's "job" to care about biographies of software authors; it ''is'' Wikipedia's remit to care about well sourced biographies of notable people.  A fallacy often expressed at AfD by aggrieved article creators is that if reliable sources aren't available for their subjects, Wikipedia's rules are at fault.  Wrong: if reliable sources cannot be found discussing their subjects, the subjects are not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per nominator and per Jab. I think Armslurp's experience is directly related to his attitude that notability and sourcing are obscure policies.  isn't a reason to keep. Any and all information about this person's accomplishments can be covered in other articles with a passing mention. Personally, I think Armslurp ''should'' go around nominating pages if they're not encyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)