The deletion of this Wikipedia article isn't a verdict on the notability of Tom Preston-Werner.
It's a verdict on the quality of the Wikipedia article. In this case, the deletion says, "the article that was here did not explain why Tom Preston-Werner was an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article". Wikipedia articles about living people that don't even say why the subject is notable are subject to automatic deletion, for reasons I explained to 'tzs downthread.
This is a problem with a straightforward solution. Create a new draft of a Tom Preston-Werner article, with a clear (but dry, factual, and assiduously cited) explanation in 2 sentences or less in the first graf of the article for why Tom Preston-Werner is notable. Use the "new article wizard" to do this.
A slightly more aggressive way to respond to this deletion would be to take the deletion itself to Wikipedia Deletion Review (DRV); the DRV page has extensive details about how to do that.
Be aware before you do this that many of Tom Preston-Werner's best-known accomplishments are already the subjects of Wikipedia articles, and that the editors of Wikipedia might reasonably reject a new article about him if it adds no notable facts to Wikipedia's preexisting coverage of his work.
The downside to writing a new draft is that the draft might be wasted effort if it merely recapitulates Wikipedia's coverage of Gravatar and Github.
The downside to taking the deletion to DRV is that you might end up litigating the decision to delete the article, which, if the original article was really bad (unsourced, no claim to notability) is probably a losing argument.