Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Chidiac (2nd nomination)

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 Delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

NOTE - *Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs), and Achidiac (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Closer's remarks -

This is an AFD of a person with a couple of unconnected minor incidents in which they briefly made the media, and at which accusations of meat (connected individuals) or sockpuppetry (multiple accounts) or at least WP:SPA use, were raised. I have therefore summed up the close in detail, and remind newcomers to AFD that AFD is not a vote; it is a chance for individuals to raise policy related points concerning the article.

Relevant points from policy:

1. Motive of article creation is irrelevant. We assess the article, and its capability to be meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria, not its creators intentions.
2. WP:NOT -- merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia
3. WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:N -- brief mentions or transient interest in the press do not necessarily make a person's biography encyclopedic. That an article is cited does not necessarily attest to it being notable. The two are different.

   (WP:NOT#NEWS cite: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events ... Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.")

4. WP:BLP1E -- people famous for one event are usually linked to an article mentioning the event. ("Cover the event, not the person")
5. WP:COI -- "Conflict of interest often raises questions as to whether material should be included in the encyclopedia or not. It also can be a cause, or contributing factor, in disputes over whether editors have an agenda that undermines the mission of Wikipedia [neutral encyclopedic reporting]. ... Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is ... if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly..."
6. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- articles at AFD are decided on their own merits, not by comparison to other stuff. Likewise "There are many more people living and dead who do not have articles and deserve them much more".
7. WP:NOTINHERITED -- notability is not inherited.
8. WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING -- that an item is "useful" or "interesting" does not mean it is necessarily encyclopedic.

There is one policy-based "keep" point, by user:DGG ("Using [a DVD] to burn the first recordable DVD at Bill Gates keynote at comdex is another matter--Comdex is not just another trade show") -- notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, the issue is not whether comdex is notable, but whether we would usually 1/ consider this achievement notable, or 2/ consider that it made the person who operated the recording notable.

Examining the article itself, there are only two items in it - a claim that he "pioneered" real-time DVD authoring, and that an internet cafe he ran was a finalist in a yahoo competition. Unfortunately these do not much help. The "pioneering" turns out on examination of cites to mean he was a co-party to a publicity incident or trade show first demo, namely the burning of a dvd before a speech had finished (which is actually all that he did, working with world class video editing multinational Pinnacle). This really is not a very strong basis or notable event to justify an article, even though comdex is very well known as a show (WP:NOTINHERITED). If it were to make anything notable at all, it would attest to notability of the businesses or the event, not person. Being a finalist in the cometition does not seem to have encouraged the presentation by anyone of a strong case for notability either, at this debate.

Looking at the deletion discussion therefore:

1. This press release describes the DVD demo as a first. But doesn't really give much notability to the subject - as Weregerbil says, it's hard to see how being the operator makes him notable in the sense that this was not at all about him, as a person. It could have been anyone holding the camera or operating the software for the companies Opulent Media and Pinnacle, and may well have been.
2. Most of the comments for "keep" seem to be saying either it is a"quality stub", or that it is useful, or interesting. A few consider as weak keeps, whether the dvd issue is a contribution towards notability. However once the many non-arguments are filtered (which account for much of the "keep"s), there is a strong AFD view that it does not, or does not sufficiently, and that the article should be deleted.

I therefore concur with the nomination. AFD is based upon Wikipedia article criteria and policy, and consensus which draw on these. As noted above, there are good reasons both in policy, and the events being referenced, and the stance of contributors at AFD, to agree that ultimately, this article and discussion do not in fact attest to the subject himself being sufficiently notable to meet biographical inclusion criteria.

--FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Chidiac

Anthony Chidiac (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Vanispamcruftisement of a non-notable person. A guy who once appeared in a trade show demo, then started a cafe. The article attempts to hide the non-notability in flowery language (instead of "start a cafe", try Dilbert-esque "research and develop a concept to progress an integrated venue to cater for socializing in a convergence whateverthehell" — I kid you not.) Has himself (admitted) and a couple of other contributors (User:T3Smile, User:Rdpaperclip) who have no other editing interest than a Chidiac fetish spamming Wikipedia with the name of Chidiac and his business. Enough is enough methinks. Deleted once before after AfD. Weregerbil 18:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't mean to be pedantic... just want to add my two cents... I think the last AfD was centered around the lack of proper sourcing and the cruft. This version looks like it has better sourcing. Some cruft is starting to creep back in. I agree that the Dilbert-esque language is a clean-up problem. -- Ben 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Though if we clean up the language and name dropping, what is left? "Operated a DVD camcorder at a trade show and started a local coffee shop"...? Very little else in the article is sourced, including the "personal life" section, year of birth, number of children, place of residence. Even whether the DVD operator and the cafe-starter are the same Anthony Chidiac. The trouble with nn self-bios: thoroughly unverifiable. Weregerbil 18:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm with you. The personal section is a recent addition and totally unsourced. It should probably be removed all at once because of WP:BLP concerns. From the DVD authoring he sounds pretty notable. I just don't know... and my comments are scattered and not very helpful. Thanks for your response, Weregerbil. I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes... -- Ben 19:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually the DVD authoring mention of Chidiac is written by User:T3Smile and is wholly unsourced. Which I think demonstrates the main problem with the Chidiac accounts: they don't just document Chidiac in his own article, they spread the inflated claims elsewhere. Reading Internet cafe, Chidiac's cafe appears to need more unsourced documenting than any other cafe in the world, complete with a picture of his parents. Weregerbil 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite being briefly in the news, there isn't a great deal of evidence of notability here. A thin case might be made for the compnay, Opulent, or its brand, TrendNET (and I guess there's evidence those articles may have existed in the past), but basically what we have is a guy who started a company with unproven notability. Accomplishment is not notability. Being a product demo or producer at an expo, even for Bill Gates, is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dhartung. Changed my opinion to keep per Rdpaperclip. Clearly I didn't look into the article deep enough. --Slartibartfast1992 23:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as clearly notable (sorry, Dhartung, but accomplishments such as starting a new idea or a major company do count towards notability), but WP:BLP requires better sourcing. Bearian 01:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. This article seems to better than when I first discussed it back in July. Bearian 01:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know what policy you're citing, Bearian. But even if such things did count, I see no evidence of either here. --Dhartung | Talk 02:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep running a camcorder at a trade show may not be notable, but using one to burn the first recordable DVD at Bill Gates keynote at comdex is another matter--Comdex is not just another trade show. The nternet cafe seems to have also some sources for notability. DGG (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Was that really the first recordable DVD? Neither the article nor the sources (copies of a company press release) make that claim. Mr. Chidiac doesn't appear to have made any ground breaking invention; he once produced (according to a company press release) a DVD using other peoples' software. Comdex was big but not everything that happens in a big trade show is automatically of encyclopedic notability. Weregerbil 16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry for abbreviating--first non-professionally-oriented --which i admit is a more qualitative sort of distinction than true "first"DGG (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Sorry guys, I stuffed up, and added a piece of personal life without quoting sources. Article is thoroughly resourced, comments taken from press articles and because it is short and sweet, is quite a powerful statement. All I was trying to do is to conform to WP:BIO. Guy is notaqble because he bought DVD Authoring under the 5k mark, making it consumer friendly and gave it mass-market appeal. Stop picking on this guy ok? There a a lot more articles on wiki that are thoroughly unresearched and have no supporting media to back up the claims. So, I deleted the "Personal Life" part and will only post material that I can post citations to. Thanks to all that support this article, its not about anything non-symbolic and Tracey just wrote it as it was claimed in the articles. No more, no less. Its just a stub, so that more information is compiled by others. People jusyt couldn't work on an article in someones userspace, and, as said before, there are far more articles on wikipedia with no newspaper articles or releases available, yet they are still online. Cheers.--Rdpaperclip 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• comment - wasnt a camcorder - was a complete CBS crew that recorded event as a multi-camera show. In dolby surround 5.1 too. cheers. --Rdpaperclip 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Really well put together stub, and great supporting evidence of such achievements. I would like to know more. I've seen worse written stubs without citations and they are still on wikipedia.--150.101.154.245 03:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC) — 150.101.154.245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment For the love of God... Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And to Rdpaperclip... what exactly did you delete from the article? -- Ben 03:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Hi Ben. I was about to delete the offending addition to the article I placed yesterday when I found that someone else politely did so and hence helped out positively. This project is all about positivity, and leave God out of this, chidiac is not God. lol. Best regards to you Ben. --Rdpaperclip 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Good times. -- Ben 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • and I quote WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS "If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article." Enough said. Its an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. As such,could other wikiadmins help oppose the renomination and wait until more work can be done to the article? There is no advertising chidiacs business in the article itself. Sure, the supporting material does highlight it, but you need the supporting material for citation, so its catch 22. Its a bit early for this process to happen in my opinion, but thanks a lot for caring about it.--Rdpaperclip 04:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I think the important part of that page is... "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." Which is a lot of what's going on here. -- Ben 04:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Though hath scorn on all things YouTube, this is another supporting media piece on the "research project" cafe - hence it being written in that way - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exuqTN5hhUk I am not sure whether this link should be placed on chidiac entry - thoughts appreciated. --Rdpaperclip 04:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Does it count that I found this article and the links to the cybercafe experiment useful for some research I was doing? I use wikipedia as a start to research on any new topic and an article full of citations is an excellent resource. A low traffic small size article doesn't take up too many resources and so I think the bar for deletion should be set high. Of course this particular article could be improved by removing the Dilbert like marketing speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggplantpasta (talk • contribs) 05:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This debate is a waste of time. Sorry. Initiated by someone who just could have deleted irrelevant, non cited material. Stub is short, I agree words used may be "powerful", but theres only so such you can say in a paragraph to get the message across concisely without rambling on. If you don't like the words suggest something different, or do as the stub says - "EXPAND" it. I became custodian of a "train wreck" attempt article in june this year, rewrote it as a stub based on a consensus of recommendation from the same people who recommended article for deletion last time, cited it all, complied with all guidelines that wikipedia set out, and someone zealous about some little aussie guys achievement making notability on wikipedia, cited, verified, and further information completing other key topics of wikipedia actually HELPED others. Its a stub. It needs time to be expanded upon, using cited sources, and I have done my job to the letter in doing such entry. A Stub of the highest quality as far as stubs go. Its now up to others to expand, not delete it. Have a great day. T--T3Smile 09:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• 'comment ps Weregerbil, two or more people contributing to an article is called COLLABORATION, which is what Wikipedia is about, especially when compiling citations to support written material. Without sounding rude, are you against collaboration, the guy himself, or just have a problem with people having a go at editing without your permission? methinks weregerbil has had some form of association with chidiac himself in the past and, surprise surprise, is on a warpath to defame and discredit, not to expand and encourage, collaborative efforts to note people of worthy notability in the technology industry. Anyway, off my horse.  :) --T3Smile 09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Quality Stub, cited sources, v.nice links which give greater insight into contribution. How much can u say in two paragraphs without sounding too long winded. Would like to see how the stub is expanded in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.197.129 (talk • contribs) — 203.171.197.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Can people pls sign entries? ta.--T3Smile 10:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think they are all labeled now. I hope. :) -- Ben 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 11:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well, being the subject of the article, I was hesitant to comment, but I had a message to contribute to this discussion so heres my 2 cents worth. T3 has done a great job at making a fully verifiabe, cited stub. Rdpaper put personal stuff about me, which was taken from a TV show I did a long time ago that I wanted to forget about, and all you guys just shout "delete delete delete" lol. Its nice to be recognized by wikipedia, and I'm happy with my life and what I do now, and in my spare time I wouldn't mind contributing information to fill in other spots of wikipedia that beg completion. Wouldn't know if I would want to edit an entry about myself, I think that would violate something here. Again thanks to all who have spent the time caring about it. I've had lots of fun doing some neat things in my career, wouldn't change a thing.--Achidiac 11:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Anthony, thanks for joining into this. I think you CAN contribute to the article about you through WP:SELFPUB, just follow the policy. I think you can write about your "Early Life" which would help out somewhat - can admins comment about this?--T3Smile 11:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • OK No Probs T3, I'll help but you or others will need to look over it, I don't want to be seen as it being something to promote me or anything. I don't need self-promotion or even promotion anymore, past that. How does weregerbil know the patrons at the internet cafe were MY mum and dad...could be anyones mum and dad!? (BTW My dad is deceased a while ago now) Thankyou.--Achidiac 12:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I know they are your parents because you labeled them as such. Right here you are saying "mum and dad enjoying food". Of course you were logged in as User:Rdpaperclip at the time. Oops, I guess you just confirmed one of your sockpuppets right here. That's your identity when you are being an Australian aboriginal female who complains others are being racist against "her", was it? Weregerbil 19:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Holy crap. I don't know that that is called for. Accusing someone of using sockpuppets is the third door on the left... not here... Let's bring it down a notch and discuss the article. -- Ben 19:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I think it is appropriate in an AfD discussion to note that some of the participiants are really a one and the same person. An AfD is not a vote, but IMHO confirmation that some of the "keep" !voters are socks of the subject of the article is noteworthy. Also when the subject of the article keeps making accusations and wild conspiracy theories against other people, their motives, and speculations on their sexual preference (not that there is anything wrong with that); I think an explanation of the source of the "parents" information is not out of order. Weregerbil 20:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Dear Mr. Weregerbil - It was already established long long time ago that I am a real person (female), Rdpaperclip is my lecturer at uni, and Achidiac, is well, the topic of the discussion, and none of us are one and the same person we all are different people. I agree with Ben, keep to the subject matter and proof and evidence.T.--T3Smile 21:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• comment Ben, other admins, this discussion has gone past the gutter and into the sewer. All I did was add "Early Life" to a stub and its become a war of words, and all without foundation for such. Its clear the nominator for AfD (weregerbil) has some sort of negative personal affiliation with subject, so should be discluded in this debate. Yes, Tracey, myself, and Anthony all know each other, either as colleagues or friends, and there is nothing wrong with that. We're not related nor are we sockpuppets, we COLLABORATE on articles as two/three heads are better than one. Tracey has been busy writing many more articles as well, she just wanted to get this one right first. Is someone able to edit out any crud that has nothing to with the article review itself? Makes for a less confusing read and a clear, concise review process. Thankyou --Rdpaperclip 23:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• summary The way I see it - User:Weregerbil saw that "personal life" was added to the article and just went ahead and nominated for an AfD, without going through a process of contacting editor (an amateur at wiki editing) and asking to cite these new details, which would have been the friendliest thing to do. Proof is here. User:Swerdnaneb deleted "offending" details after weregerbil nominated for an aFD - proof: here user:rdpaperclip noted that statements were not cited - proof: 2 last entries in discussion page, and it was all too late as weregerbil pounced on the article as an AfD without just being nice to the newbies. User:Achidiac - the subject of article with his own user ID here, prefers to abstain from writing the article as per WP:COI, but didn't know that he could have added comment of personal life himself (which would have helped considerably, as it would have came from source). This process was all too rushed in going down the AfD line. Notability is established here, not a question about it, citing news articles (still a handful of them online after six years, out of over 1200 articles written in more than a dozen different languages). Six years is a long time in anyones books. At the time the feats WERE notable, but wikipedia generally doesnt delete things that are NOW not notable due to technology advances. If if did, we should then delete things like Knight Rider or ENIAC as well while we are at it. Might as well send Michaelangelo down the AfD route as well, not that I'm comparing chidiac to such, but if it wasnt for that feat at comdex we would be all using Macs to Author DVD's and I know the PC dominant marketplace today would be a very different scenario if this didn't happen. Similarly, chidiac raised the bar on the quality and convergence of the internet cafe, which meant that i could clean up and make the article more coherent. Yes it has a lot of references to the o3 cafe place, but I have called for others to provide more pictures and articles, so that the article can show more scope of the "internet cafe". In years to come, you will see more of his work in that arena as other people become inspired in this idea he had and the research he has done to make sure it can work. Guys like chidiac belong here on wikipedia, we just need to be very careful in how the article expands out, thats all. Thanks to all who have made comment in their vote to justify their reasoning. Simply "voting" does not count as per AfD Guidelines. I have more to contribute to wikipedia, but if all I get is deletion even when I've complied I feel that partaking in such is a waste, and that is unfair with the principles behind wikipedia, especially when I have complied to its rules. T--T3Smile 00:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly non-notable. There are many more people living and dead who do not have articles and deserve them much more than this person.Grahamec 02:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• comment Hi Graham, and thanks for your feedback. If you know of other people living or dead, in Australia, in the IT industry who dont have articles and 'deserve' them, I'd love to write about them! By the way, "deservability" doesnt count in wikipedia, but if they are notable, well I'm keen to write - send me a message and I'll do the research. Hitler doesnt deserve to be in wikipedia, but is notable :) T —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3Smile (talk • contribs)

Hitler deserves an article, because he is notable. This person is clearly not notable, however many real or imagined friends he has.--Grahamec 01:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Besides, Graham, that's just an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. --Slartibartfast1992 00:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Slarti, agree with your point, but there are two sides to that argument. Notability should not be the question in this debate - the articles and references assert such, And I just made a stub that is a compilation of all the articles. AfD was initiated in spite, without due consultation with contributors, and far too quickly. Note: please read the entry itself - the remarks read - "This is not a recreation of deleted material. I have unsalted the article and moved a new creation here per request of an editor. I'm watchlisting this though, so if it begins going down the same road as the old one, I'm re-deleting. User:^demon" - It didnt even have a chance to be re-edited! I and others can only contribute so much in such a short space of time as we all have real jobs :) Over months and years there will be more from credible media sources, so others will continue to expand through contribution, and I can also contribute as well. Thats for sure. T --T3Smile 09:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• comment adding a bit more history here for reviewers - [this]- a likely excuse as to what user:weregerbil is after. His/Her own fame. user:^demon, a notable deletionist admin, was the person who in fact included this stub here in wikipedia - The guy speedily deleted an article written by Jimmy Wales!! Now my very first article has become the subject of such debate. Really, we all have other things better to do with our time, especially me (I'm just bored of watching the ARIA's so I have a few mins spare lol). Leave the stub alone and take the wikiwar to someone like Jimmy Wales, I want to do more contributing to this thing. OK I've said more than enough. T--T3Smile 11:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith in other editors. -- Ben 17:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Swerdnaneb, if you did assume good faith, then this stub would not be an article for deletion and debate topic in the first place. Assuming Good faith would have had admins communicate with editors first before going to such extreme measure as an Article for deletion. I think that is what I am getting from this debate, and the debate takes up more space than the article about me itself. Thats v.funny! --Achidiac 03:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• comment I was here to see whether I could change the (quote) dilbertesque form of paraphrasing that T3Smile did on the entry on me. I tried to look up real time and found computing speak for it, but nothing that notes real time MPEG-2 video encoding, which is what was achieved at the Gates' Launch of Windows XP at comdex in Sep. 2001. Instead of setting up a new article, does anyone have thoughts on how something such as real time video encoding can be represented? a MERGE into real time??? I also pionered Real-Time Digital Audio Editing with Hybrid Arts, Inc. Back in the 80's. Not looking for claim to fame of $$$ for the claim, its just not represented here in wikipedia. Real-Time Video Editing involved the manipulation of GOP Interframes and keyframes to produce a result that only changes the elements that need changing in video. That work was done in Real Time in 2001, today, we're doing that work at 10x real time on consumer equipment. For the folks at home, thats when you merge edits, transitions, effects, without having to re-render a whole piece. Thats what we did in 2001, and in 1988 we did it in real time in audio with Michael Jackson's remix. I'm sure you all can write about it in depth - its definitely encyclopaedic material and should fascinate most of you! Please contact me if you have some ideas to recognise such on wikipedia so the kids can use it as a reference, I believe that is the aim of the people behind my article and other articles thast spurn from it or add to existing material. regards --Achidiac 03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I am trying to ASSUME GOOD FAITH which really means I'll just keep my personal reservations to myself. Burntsauce 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This AfD discussion is a mess, so I'll try to remain on point. Simply, this subject appears to fail WP:BIO and is non-notable. Doctorfluffy 08:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• comment Hi Doctorfluffy, thanks for adding a point, makes a difference as others think its a vote and it doesn't help this so-called debate - see Deletion Policy. I'll put it plain and simple, the initiation of this AfD process itself is invalid for the article. The initiating admin cannot cite Vanispamcruftisement as a reason to begin a proposed deletion, especially when he did not assume good faith in communicating with the admin that authorised the addition and myself, the initiating author of the article. This just lead to a debate that turned into a mess. The stub was only put up for only a few days when this AfD initiating admin pounced on it. Nobody had time to expand the article from a stub to make it conform to WP:BIO Rdpaperclip tried - see discussion on article, and got pounced upon for trying to expand. I need to ensure the article doesnt end up as a train wreck again as an unofficial custodian of article due to a piece I am writing as my Uni Thesis. Its not because I am the subject himself or a sockpuppet of subject. I was told in the last AfD Debate that starting with a stub and expanding, doing it in this way and having both myself and another admin "keep an eye on it" would be the best way to complete to conform fully as well as keep the quality and standard of the article high. This takes time as people have their own lives and live in different timezones. Could some admin please close this AfD as it is invalid, and allow others to expand the article please. This AfD has been active for 8 Days now, well over the 5 days as per policy The initiating admin has cited some untruths about why he has initiated such AfD in this messy debate. The article stub was added and is being "watchlisted" by a notable wikipedia admin, and needs no further AfD debate until others can contribute to expanding the article, by ensuring they cite sources as they contribute as per the stub that fully complies to such. Again Doctorfluffy, thankyou kindly for at least making a point worth noting which I agree with, but I can't work miracles in only a few days by myself: but rest assured both I and others will ensure the quality of this article is not compromised as it expands once this AfD is closed. Nobody likes to waste time expanding an article when it is proposed for deletion. Thankyou.--T3Smile 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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.