Deletion of Anthony Chidiac (2nd nomination)

Comment: For the love of God... Please see . And to Rdpaperclip... what exactly did you delete from the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: This AfD discussion is a mess, so I'll try to remain on point. Simply, this subject appears to fail  and is non-notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: as clearly notable (sorry, Dhartung, but accomplishments such as starting a new idea or a major company ''do count'' towards notability), but  requires better sourcing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy 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 Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement|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   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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Despite being briefly #NEWS|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)