Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Dickey
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 special:diff/268719255|for over eleven years, and a redirect seems not unreasonable.{{pb}}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 , and I'm interested to learn why the , searching for information on the guy, shouldn't be taken to the nearest thing he's known for
— User:Serial, 09:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:CHEAP||WP:READER (Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap)