Apparently non-notable; the only source I can find is the one in the article, which isn't enough per WP:BIO.
EDIT: After the new sources that have been added due to the (now hatted) discussion below, I'm changing my implicit delete to a weak keep, though I'd like to keep the AfD open to get other opinions, as I think it's a borderline case. Writ Keeper⚇♔14:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extended conversation with article author
What constitutes notability? - gjp. I had understood it to mean any meaningful contribution to a field of knowledge or endeavor. Is a one million plus units sold for an application not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregoryptm (talk • contribs) 14:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Writ Keeper: I do have some additional external sources for Andrew Stone's notability, including articles in MacWeek and Business Week. Let me compile those first before you delete, okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregoryptm (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, those look pretty good; the BusinessWeek article is definitely a keeper. Let me take a closer look later today, and if it is good enough (and I suspect it is), I'll withdraw the deletion nomination. In the meantime, though, you might want to take a look at this; we generally prefer the paragraphs to be directly cited to the source that supports it, rather than just having a bunch of sources glommed on at the end. No worries, though; that's not a big enough concern to warrant deletion or anything, as it's easily fixable. Again, I'll see what I can do with that later today.
A few other tips about Wikipedia: when you make comments to pages that aren't articles themselves (like this page or talk pages), it's best to sign your comment by adding four tildes to the end of your post like this: ~~~~ . The Wikipedia software will turn this into your username and a timestamp, which is pretty helpful for figuring out who said what and when. There's a bot that'll do this for you if you forget, so it's not a huge deal, but it helps. Also, do you know about your talk page? Sometimes people don't. You can get to it through this link, or the "My talk" link at the top-right of each Wikipedia page. That's where people will leave you messages if they're trying to get in touch; when someone else writes to it, you'll get that bright orange "You have a new message" banner at the top of Wikipedia pages. Check it out! Writ Keeper⚇♔15:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after looking at them, the Bloomberg source and probably the Wired.com source (with a loose enough definition of "significant coverage") look legit enough (the others appear to be opinion pieces, which generally aren't accepted as reliable sources). So, I'll say that Stone is probably notable enough to pass the GNG, though it's a borderline case. I'm going to leave this AfD up for now to get other people's input, as it's a borderline case, but I'm changing my delete !vote to a weak keep. One way or another, the article needs a lot of work. Writ Keeper⚇♔23:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've known Andy Stone since 1991. Andy influenced my NextStep programming and ultimately led to my creation of Mesa (a spreadsheet for NextStep and the worlds first real-time spreadsheet). I'm not sure why there is any quibbling at all about Andy's Bio. It all seems right to me and it seems nasty and petty to try to take it down.
