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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:38, 25 October 2007

Anthony Chidiac

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. --Slartibartfast1992 23:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) This template must be substituted.[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Good times. -- Ben 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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) This template must be substituted.
Can people pls sign entries? ta.--T3Smile 10:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they are all labeled now. I hope. :) -- Ben 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 11:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 **I think they are all labeled now. I hope. :) -- [[User:Swerdnaneb|Ben]] 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 *<small>'''Note''':  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia|list of Australia-related deletions]].  </small><small>—[[User:Longhair|Longhair]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Longhair|talk]]</sup> 11:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)</small>
-*'''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 myself, but I think that would violate something here.  Again thanks to all who have spent the time caring about it.  A.--[[User:Achidiac|Achidiac]] 11:35, 25 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.--[[User:Achidiac|Achidiac]] 11:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)