Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Chidiac (3rd 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 - largely this has come out the same way as the previous two AfDs which both resulted in the article being deleted. Largely discounting the single-purpose accounts and brand new/IP addresses, the consensus I read is that the article is a self-promotional one that lacks references to reliable sources, and does not meet the notability standards for such an article. There is some significant off-Wikipedia collusion evident here and I am not convinced it reflects the activity of different people. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Chidiac
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural nomination for IP. IP's statement below. lifebaka++ 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Submitted for deletion. Subject is not notable. 118.209.219.96 (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep good as gold! Not promotional.  originator of this process should be identity checked - sounds like a vandal.  Caron --124.169.32.240 (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC) — 124.169.32.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep highly informative. Well written.  Cannot see any promotional overtones.  This article needs improvement not deletion.--60.240.230.169 (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above is a single purpose account who has removed archived material related to this article.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment different people. all entitled to debate as they all have been involved in writing article.--Cafejunkie (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep not perfect, but well written. Would like to see inline citations to easily reference facts.  Article and subject are noteworthy/notable, but thats not reason to delete entire article.  Like to see anonymous nominator IP blocked from further attempts at AfD.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azurewiki (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Azurewiki also appears to be a single purpose account.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment different people. all entitled to debate as they all have been involved in writing article.--Cafejunkie (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * comment I have attempted a few inline citations, could someone please message me to let me know if im doing this right? regards, --Cafejunkie (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, AfD nominator IP is located in/near perth and uses a mobile phone to connect to the internet - I spoke with a DJ a week ago who doesnt really like the subject person and I believe he/his group is being vexatious in this attempt.  Please close this afd and leave article as it is, as the Afd nominator is vexatiously attacking subject due to own interests.  Hope you can verify that as well. --Cafejunkie (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep look, this has been here before and an AFd should not be here again unless the subject makes contact with wikimedia or wiki admins and notes any inclusion being unverifiable and/or incorrect. The IP noted as the nominator for Afd has no qualified location/fixed ip, etc.  The ip originator of the AFD should be located and identified first for more feedback than "subject not notable".  I have a fair idea of who the AfD nominator may be.

To the other voters - since the previous Afd's three important things occurred - 1) The first article attempt was poorly written, had NO references to any articles, and was a poor effort at an article by inexperienced people. 2) The article subject settled issues with wikimedia foundation (reason for 2nd afd due to subject not wanting it on here, not that it was poorly written) and 3) Subject organised with wikimedia foundation for a banner to be included that ensured the article adhered to biographies of living persons policy.

This article has been on here for two years without any further cause for deletion. Subject is notable, the stub and the help received by admins initially to get it to stub quality proved that was a clear cut case for its inclusion. The stub was recently expanded mainly by me. I am happy to return this to stub if this helps. I am happy to edit article to adhere to inline citation policy if it helps everyone. There is a very large difference to the original AFD's because there was simply NO press or other references on the subjects achievements in the previous afd's. There is a long list noted in this iteration, and there are more references I will add to do with patents and other documentation I've found on the IP site. Subject is quite ill and does not need a person to vexatiously attack article while subject unable to comment. Article in its expanded form and his achievements, various references from notable sources, and a lot of work i have done to expand it - shouldnt be erased from here because of an unidentified ip and person not liking the article. Subject is no longer actively in the field, so i cant see self-promotion in it. I have made an edit to put "early life" at the end of article, if this helps, and will endeavour to include online citations in due course... thanks --Cafejunkie (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This does not address the complete lack of inline cites by reliable sources to show the article's subject is notable. The external links given say nothing of substance about the subject or are not independent of it.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The stub was contained within this boundary, however two years have past and print media is going pay per view. Its hard to bind print articles in the 80's/90's that are not online, and the age/herald sun articles in 2000-onwards are now pay-per-view.  The expansion comes as part of radio interview material.  The Age and Herald-Sun are major Australian independent publications, TV shows Dave and Kim and TODAY etc. are also editorially independent and are on major Public TV stations.--Cafejunkie (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Much of your above post isn't supported by the evidence. This article was started on 17 November 2008, not two years ago. Prior to that you worked on developing it from October 2008 at User:Cafejunkie/Chidiac - you are the only person to have edited this page and there are no comments by admins on your talk page so your claim that administrators helped you develop it isn't justified. You and the subject of the article have contributed almost all the current version of it so claiming that its endorsed by admins is also not justified (and also irrelevant: admins' views on the notability of the subject of articles don't carry any particular weight beyond assessing whether there's a sufficient claim of notability for the article to not be subject to speedy deletion). Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete looks like a pretty clear cut case of self promotion to me, but I do wish that this IP would elaborate further. JBsupreme (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION come to mind. The first two AfDs resulted in Deletion, which begs the question if this is a case for speedy deletion as recreation of material deleted via discussion (assuming the article is practically the same as its previous incarnations).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - OMG, not again! This was deleted a while ago, as noted, so speedy deletion doesn't apply.  However, yet again, he or a fan has submitted a poorly-formatted article.  No substantive opinion. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence the situation has changed significantly since either of the last two times this was deleted. Still self-promotion by a non-notable person.  Looks like it's time to Salt this as well. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete No references covering this person to establish his notability. The multiple keep votes by new IP and newly registered editors above are highly suspect (though common in AfDs for self promotional articles like this one). The subject of the article was involved in the previous versions of it, and I'm willing to bet that he's involved with this one as well. I agree that salting this once deleted would be appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep From a resource material perspective I found this article to be highly informative. Before I read this article and viewed the multimedia and articles my perception was that the digital audio and video age started with the Apple Mac and ProTools, the internet cafe was a seedy looking cubicle in a dubious pocket of a city, and never realised that Michael Jackson had the first digital remix made in the early 90’s when the internet was still a dream.  The digital audio remix "mashups" are a big craze today.  I then began to search Atari and “ADAP II” and Internet Cafe and found poorly written information of even less significance on Wikipedia.  I would have to use other sources to get more material on these subjects.  Using other sources I clearly see that the Atari played a big part in Recording Studios in the 80’s/90’s.  Lots of print about it yet Wikipedia hasn’t documented the devices or its pioneers.  The ENIAC was the first real computer but I don’t see a timeline of progression for the devices and pioneers that progressed digital audio and video.  I’ve turned to books that verify the above digital progression and this guy seems the real deal involved (proven as per reference material).  I believe him to be in fact a pioneer and a notable person and this article worthy of inclusion.  There is a very large gap that exists in the digital age timeline in Wikipedia that needs to be documented accurately, with the pioneers and the devices documented.  Looks like from the initiator of this AfD that this is a case of politics interfering with a legitimate progression of an article.  Thanks for the reading experience, the article educated me, and that is what Wikipedia is about.  Sorry for the long answer, i wanted to give proper reason and persepective of my experience - Best of luck!  Ric Harmon --202.146.15.12 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That argument basically boils down to WP:ILIKEIT, which is not a good argument in AfDs and does not address the reason this article has been nominated for deletion - namely, the lack of independent in-depth coverage of Mr Chidiac. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Dear All,
 * I am the person that is the subject matter of this article.
 * I am not personally affiliated with anyone either editing or commenting in this debate (that would be fraud).
 * I wish to reserve an elaborate comment until my return to work on the 8th February, so I ask the administrator of this aFd to leave this open until shortly after my posting of such comment.
 * The purpose for this entry was for resourcing current and past articles on my achievements in the former industry I worked in. Theres no money in being a pioneer, so I changed my focus and industry.
 * I am no longer in the field to which this article is written, so the motivation of "self-promotion" should be omitted.
 * I cannot be made responsible for ip-based entries in the past and in future. If an unknown IP has initiated a process then other unknown IP's should be equally able to be included and heard in this debate.  The aFd initiating unknown ip should be validated.
 * It is common for one or two people to make a lot of edits to an article, and others to make a few here and there. This is also not a valid reason for deletion.
 * I have just made an edit culling aspects of this article that I deem to be speculative, please note such. Apart from such edit, as per my direct communication in 2008 with the Wikimedia foundation and further direct communications by fax and e-mail when required with wikimedia through 2009, I hereby authorise such entry to be included in this encyclopaedic resource for historical purposes, so long as the included matter relates to published articles, transcripts, books, and other media (without it becoming plaigiarist).

I will ensure all here involved with this AfD that I will make a further comment upon my return on or around the 8th February 2010.

Thankyou all for your time and effort in this matter and process. I sincerely appreciate your comments, both good and bad. Its a public forum and everybody is entitled to their opinion. Also, please note, to the "voters" - its not the vote, its the substance and reason behind your vote that counts. Have fun! cheers Ant. --AntCee (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment None of that addresses the reason this article has been nominated for deletion. With all respect, the article does not present references to establish that you meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that you should not edit articles concerning yourself (please see WP:COI) and you have no control over whether Wikipedia does or doesn't have an article on you or the contents of any such article as long as all the various guidelines and policies are met. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete on notability grounds. I recall the original AfD which led to this, where numerous pro-subject socks attempted to stack an AfD in a similar way to what has happened here. Orderinchaos 08:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep very good resource. like to see citation. notable. --203.117.248.146 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC) — 203.117.248.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * comment Afd initiator 118.209.219.96 - (INTERNODE FLOATING IP - MELBOURNE AU) has not made any significant contributions to wikipedia, actually none at all. The Afd initiator is a vandal.  Admin, please close this discussion immediately and leave article as is and PROTECT for at least three months, as well, BLOCK above IP from contributions for same amount of time.  J.Tung Singapore Straits Times.--202.172.48.3 (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC) — 202.172.48.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - An IP that has not edited Wikipedia cannot be a vandal (that requires editing articles in the first place) and cannot create an AfD directly. lifebaka would not have opened an AfD on the IP's behalf if the case was without merit.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed, the IP editor is not a vandal, and it's telling that the IP socks are all claiming that he/she is. I would have nominated this article for deletion had I noticed that it had been recreated yet again. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and reduce to a reasonable size. Protect if necessary to keep from being over-expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:19, 27 January 2010
 * What references are there to address notability? Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep agree with previous keep.  cut down the puff and keep to main notable points.  refs are good.  Can see pay per view articles talked about in this AfD  (the age, Nov 2001, multimedia front page).  Better way than going to an AfD process is to alert main editors on discussion page first before having to induce this process. --202.175.187.82 (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC) — 202.175.187.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The brand-new IP editors (or, more likely, editor) should be aware that their comments and votes will likely be disregarded when a decision is made on closing this AfD. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: agree with previous keep.  Cut down the puff and keep to main notable points.  Refs are good. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The issue of notability is without a question, Chidiac is notable, main notabilites are in creating the first DVD in Real Time, and his work on modernising the Internet Cafe (not making it look like a cubicle setup). The only thing I see here that doesnt relate to the Major News Articles and refs that cover all of this entry is "Early Life".  Cut this down to a reasonable size, you can safely cut out a bit here.  From the points above, this should not have gone to a deletion procedure without discussion on the subject page.--60.240.117.215 (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2010 (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.