Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taran Rampersad


 * 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 of the debate was keep. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 11:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Taran Rampersad
Delete non notable individual who clearly fails to meet standards of WP:BIO. Recieved only very brief media attention. non encyclopedic material. Article isn't specific enough about his activities to even begin to assert notability. His online bio states that he has worked pumping gas, as an engineer, and as a consultant - everyday run-of-the-mill type jobs. Article also seems to violate WP:VAIN - the article was created by user Nodivide who seemed to have created articles relating to this user and his associations and who's username is strikingly similar to "digital divide," an organization, the individual is associated with. Strothra 13:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment google test. Yanksox 14:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I refuse to use google as a means by which to establish notability. Many non notable individuals get many google hits.  Just because they have a large web presence (ie someone who works with technology would obviously gain more hits as easily as someone who is notable on their own merit.)  None of the standards set in WP:BIO are met by this individual. --Strothra 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really care - but - this seems like something personal by Strothra. Consider: my talk page. There is actually plenty of information about me on the talk page which nobody has put in; the fact that I have been involved at WSIS level things as well as Digital Divide issues related to Mobile Technology and Culture and ICT. If Strothra feels strongly enough to delete the page about me and doesn't feel strongly enough to add information which is on the talk page, I believe that this says more about Strothra than myself. Have at it, I'm a bit tired of this particular deletionist. Get my user page next. ;-) --TaranRampersad 22:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, nothing against you. That discussion was over for me the moment I stated I would not comment any further on it.  Please see WP:AGF.  Please also remember to comment on edits and not editors - see WP:NPA.  Thanks. Also, information should not be put into the article unless it can be cited by reliable and verifable sources.  Please see WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY.  Your talk page is hardly a verifiable or reliable source for article information.  --Strothra 00:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strothra, denial would be an obvious response. As such, I have requested informal mediation, which will probably become formal mediation at this rate, and I'll probably be shouted down by people with more edits. That will guarantee that those people will always have more edits than I. This is sort of sickening. Why not create value instead of delete things that could be fleshed out? Why is it you are more willing to delete than follow up on the verifiable links that I pointed at in the talk page for the article? Why not look through the Google hits and see what is of worth in there, and which verifies things? Sure, you can delete this article but if you are following process like a robot and these are the results, the process is broken. I'm giving it 24 hours before I apply for formal mediation, and let someone else sort this out. Sad. Very sad. --TaranRampersad 02:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that it would become formal mediation unless you were the one to initiate that process especially when it concerns this article's AfD which so clearly merits an AfD tag. Although, if you wish to request formal mediation I can help you with that process in requesting arbitration.  The links in the article to not establish firm notability requirements nor are they verifiable. For instance, blogs are explicity considered unverifiable and improper citations as per WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY.  Wikipedia has standards to which articles should comply.  Also, please further note that userpages are not part of the article space and thus cannot go through the deletion process.  If it's not an article then I wouldn't try to have it deleted unless it contained clear personal attacks or threatening material.  --Strothra 13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * keep In my mind, at least, he meets two of the criteria. He is a notable editor in the Linux and ICT4D communities, as former editor of the Linux Gazette and a newly appointed editor of the Digital Divide Network. He was also actively involved in the core team of technology activists who responded to the Boxing Day tsunami, and received press coverage because of these activities. Acarvin 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm going to go with Keep on this one. I probably wouldn't have gone for it w/o the BBC link.  Active in technology seems pretty good.  Kevin_b_er 01:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I could see that if the article was about him but he is only part of a larger topic in that article. Further, it's just one article in which he is mentioned.  That hardly makes him notable. --Strothra 14:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable. Also, there are concerns about this being a retaliatory nomination, given Strothra's recent conflict with User:TaranRampersad over AFD noms.  Guettarda 14:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, the edit conflict I had with this individual had nothing to do with the nom. It wasn't even close to being the most serious edit conflict I've ever had. This article has no citations whatsoever. The only thing that even begins to establish notability is an external link to a BBC article in which he was interviewed. That's why I nominated it for deletion (refer to the nomination above). This is actually a very similar situation as the Chuck Olsen article which I nominated expect that one was actually deleted.  --Strothra 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * After our previous conversation I find this rather difficult to believe. It's reasonable to assume good faith the first time (as I did), but after I explained to you what the problem was with your actions, you continued along the same path.  You can't use the same excuse twice.  Guettarda 16:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Taran AfD came after I was already putting Rocketboom related articles up for deletion based on the same principles of Cite and verify which is how I was led to the article regarding him. I had noticed that A. Carvin, who has more than one username, had a history of creating these articles which were not cited and actually followed his article creation history. That's not really wikistalking but noticing a trend of bad article creation.  Carvin is a notable individual and I never put his article up for AfD because his article establishes his notability. Anyway, if you wish to continue this please do so on my talk page or on the AfD discussion page.  I would also like to ask you to please actually state why you believe he is notable and how the article establishes that rather than just saying that he's notable.  Remember, this is a discussion not a vote. --Strothra 16:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Room for improvement is not grounds for deletion. I would note, however, motives of the nomination are less important than establishing WP:BIO.  I think the news coverage qualifies the article.  The fact that it was created by an independent source is a testament to that.  --TeaDrinker 03:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article was not created by an independant source but by someone associated with the individual through Digital Divide. --Strothra 03:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And that is an unfounded assumption. I don't know who created the article. Digital Divide and the user NoDivide can be completely unrelated. I have NO idea who NoDivide is, and I take that as a personal insult. Whatever happened to 'Assume Good'? Yes, I disengaged per informal mediation, but nobody else can defend me BUT me. I don't know where you get off, but I do know where I get ON. Your POV is far from objective, and if there were an avenue I would question your authority to suggest AfDs. But, in an odd twist of fate, there is none. Your assumptions (1) Assume Bad, (2) Are completely wrong, and (3) demonstrate the level of personal bias you have shown so far. Delete the article if you wish, but at least do your homework instead of all this conjecture. Any response to this should start with, "I'm Sorry" and should end with, "I won't make these sort of assumptions again". Practice what you're preaching. --TaranRampersad 06:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy the article as written. No offense to Mr. Rampersad.  I've gone through the article, its history and the talk page.  Article as written does not meet WP:BIO, and none of the references establish notability in my opinion (Digital divide profile and blog do not, BBC article does not in my opinion and worldchanging.com ref does not).  If more substantial refs are added of his role as a technology activist, I can be swayed -- Samir   धर्म 07:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Taran's Notes
As the topic of the article, I cannot and should not vote. I will point out that this article has been edited, and that for a judgement to be formed the entire history of this page should be considered. Informal mediation (see my talk page) has suggested that I disengage. This is what I am doing at this time - from the Wikipedia, completely. I do not feel contribution here can be done by myself at this time. Again, look at the history of this page. If this note disappears, it will reappear. My comments are on record. Perhaps AfD should be secondary to POV. --TaranRampersad 22:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: Discussion was restored. AFDs are not meant to be votes, but discussions. Only excessive off-topic discussion needs to be moved. Guettarda 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, but it's common practice to remove discusion which is not related to the article. For instance, if we're just talking about whether the nom is in bad faith or not, that's not relevant to the article placed up for deletion.  There are many AfD discussions that are like that.  Many editors do not engage in discussion and move on when they see potential disputes and bickering between editors.  --Strothra 01:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that is an excellent example of OT comments which should be on the talk page. Guettarda 04:36, 15 June 2006 (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.