Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taran Rampersad (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 ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Taran Rampersad

 * — (View AfD)

Delete or Merge/Redirect to Digital Divide or Linux Gazette. Individual does not meet WP:BIO. Seems to not have any media coverage beyond the one BBC article in which he just interviewed and not the actual subject of the article. The Digital Divide works seem to be primarily promotional as he is associated with that. Doesn't meet WP:BIO on his own merits but could be an inclusive part of other articles. Strothra 15:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First AfD


 * Comment By Carbon Based Subject of AfD Hello again, happy campers. It appears once more (there was the speedy delete too)... here's the deal. I could add more content to the entry, and there is plenty on the talk page - but people are more interested in deleting this entry than actually fleshing it out. The articles on me ABOUT the Wikipedia were seen as self-referential - and there were some that I know of, one being Associated Press. Any stuff I put on the talk page doesn't get added, instead the article is put up for deletion. Further, there has been more media coverage through Reuters references to my writing. Screw it, I'm tired of this. Is this a personal attack? It's a possibility, it's the same person who tagged it for deletion before. So here is my thought: If you're going to keep it, fix it or allow me to work with someone to fix it. If we're going to see this deletion notice again, delete it - it's boring me. If it's to be deleted, then the reason should not be POV. It should be solid, and it should take into account all information available on the Talk page since the first deletion notice was placed on it (by the same person, come on!). I will not write about this on my site until the process is completed, and even then it may not merit a writeup. But be advised that I have been participating in other deletion discussions. I do believe assisting in post-tsunami efforts is a little more notable than the Naked Cowboy, but perhaps less than Zanta. A suggested way to handle this would be to redirect to my user page, where I could put the stuff up that relates to me without conflict of interest concerns (it's a User Page). Then someone can put my user page up for deletion and we can all have a good laugh. :-) I'm now outside of the debate, but I will point out that data is available if there are questions related to that. --TaranRampersad 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that I never even stated POV as a reason. I stated that it failed WP:BIO guidelines.  The reason I mentioned the Digital Divide articles is because they are cited in the article and the policy states that a criterion of notability is being the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." I know that you have not edited the article and thus the article does not have any self-promotional characteristics or POV per se. --Strothra 19:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, well, you responded to me. Putting an article up for deletion is a matter of POV, mi amigo. You make judgements based on guidelines and your personal beliefs; that you are now trying to delete this entry again with the same facts available (and no attempts to assist in fixing it) does lead me to believe that you simply think this entry should not exist and that you're not interested in contributing to it. Nothing has changed since the last AfD, including your commitment to delete it. The talk page has plenty of stuff, but - shucks - it's easier to delete than contribute to this article. Trust me, I understand. :-) --TaranRampersad 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that I had nominated the article because it had POV issues.  All I've seen are bios of you and a BBC article in which you are interviewed.    I cited the exact policy above. There are no results when doing a GoogleNews search  A regular Google search mostly returns the above bios, no published works in which you are the primary subject and comes from sources with which you are not affiliated. --Strothra 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you visited the Talk Page of the article, do you know the affiliations I have? *Some* are on the talk page, so hey - I did what I could. Do you know some of them are related to the Digital Divide and may not be on the web because of the nature of the work (bridging that divide)? We've had this discussion before. Of course when you do a Google search with someone who writes often, you will find a lot of stuff that isn't used- but if you sift through them, you'll find a lot more, Strothra. Again, nothing has changed since you posted the first AfD, apparently. If you track my history, I stopped contributing for a while after the last AfD because I found it distasteful. I start contributing again, I see this again. Deja vu gets boring. Put me out of my misery, one way or the other, but for Pete's sake - be done with it. I'm quite tired of this, please don't respond to this. Save it for the debate with the people below. --TaranRampersad 20:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree the individual completely fails WP:BIO. One interview with the BBC does not constitute in and of itself notability, and nothing else here seems to qualify. Fail delete, I would support merge and r/d to Linux Gazette. Eusebeus 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per before. What is this now, the 5th chapter in Strothra's campaign against Taran?  Get over it - holding a grudge and waging vendettas against fellow editors is totally unacceptable.  Guettarda 17:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Guettarda. Possible bad faith nom.  --Oakshade 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't a bad faith nom, I haven't had any interaction with the editor or the article in many months. I recently came across it again and it clearly violates WP:BIO.  Guerttarda had a grudge against me when I placed the last AfD and so I can perhaps see why he may think that now.  Look at WP:BIO and you will see that it clearly fails to meet those guidelines. --Strothra 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This seems to be the person all the magaizes go to for an interview on the digital divide, and as such seems to be one of the top experts in his field. As such no reason to delete --T-rex 22:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? What evidence is there for this? I don't see any to justify such a major claim Bwithh 07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - this is a classic case of having a two-cent article on a million dollar subject. If this is rewritten less as a resume and more of an encyclopedic article, there won't be yet another AfD in its future. Expansion of the explanation of the activities that make him notable would definitely not hurt... including a little bit on the details and effects of his ingenuity. The external links overwhelm the stub tags below. B.Wind 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  06:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Sorry, but I'm not seeing any evidence of encyclopedic notability here at all. Or even news media notability beyond passing mentions. Taran seems pretty deft at building up his online profile through writing on various websites, but nowhere in the article or in the references do I see a convincing claim to encyclopedic notability. The strongest claim is the editorial position at the Linux Gazette, a free Linux webzine. The Gazette website currently lists 6 individuals in various editorial roles. On Taran's own resume, it is explained that for 9 or 10 months, he was the editor/forum admin/website manager for the site - he was not editor-in-chief or anything. Not seeing any other claims to encyclopedic notability on the resume (there is a very vague claim to have been "published widely on the internet through technical and information technology related websites and news" but nothing specific to back this claim to reputation up aside from being a contributor to a blog and also uh... contributing to Wikipedia).

The volunteer work assisting disaster relief project is of course admirable, but I'm not seeing how that is exceptional - I have friends who are working in development/aid programs (one of them is an engineer too) and come up with original schemes; it's not that unusual... there are many (though not enough) people who volunteer for this kind of disaster relief effort. In this case, the Alert Retrieval System is a great idea, but not groundbreaking - as I understand it, it consists of ARS receiving SMSs and then posting them on a website and in a mass email bulletin in order to circumvent cellphone reception problems in an affected area. (Incidentally, the article suggests that Taran proposed the idea for the Alert Retrieval System but the ARS website says someone else came up with the concept and Taran is the "project coordinator").Ran a Factiva query on him - 17 hits breaking down as 1 letter to the editor by him, 1 passing mention in a list of people speaking at a conference; 1 question posed by him in a transcript of a public online chat by User:Jimbo in 2006 in which various people asked Jimbo questions; 14 reprints of a 2004 newswire story about this newfangled invention called Wikipedia, in which Taran is used as an example of a typical non-US Wikipedian who creates articles, including one on his hometown. Is every Wikipedian who creates an article to get a Wikipedia article about themselves now? Bwithh 07:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I was Editor in Chief, Community Facilitator, etc at LinuxGazette.COM. A reading of the history of LinuxGazette is necessary for that. I tend to agree with many of your other points, but I take issue with this statement: "Taran seems pretty deft at building up his online profile through writing on various websites". Why? Simply because of my work on digital divide issues, which by the nature of them requires someone to write them. As a human being, Bwithh, I don't appreciate that statement. I have *never* written of myself to portray myself as being larger than I am, and that one line is something I find offensive. I'm a writer. I write. No one else covered conferences in the Caribbean. That said, I can go with a delete based on present Wikipedia policy, but I find fault with a policy which enforces a digital divide. I didn't write the bio in the first place, and I have problems with the way it was written and the manner in which it has been dealt with on Wikipedia. --TaranRampersad 20:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - I don't really have anything to add, Bwithh pretty much summed it up right there. --Wooty Woot? contribs 08:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per BwithH. Akihabara 14:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn person. An WAY too much chit-chat about editors, their personalities, their personal lives, and their grudges. Take it to each others' talk pages or to RfC. Talk here only about the article, please. Edison 16:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Get This Done Delete it or not, tarrying further is not productive. That this has been relisted on the Second AfD demonstrates how little people seem to be concerned about the PERSON that is being discussed here. Why isn't this done yet? First a speedy delete, then an AfD, then another AfD drawn out with it hanging over the bio. More than sufficient time has passed. 9 days? Come on. Delete it and be done with it. I'd rather no entry at all, and if this article is still in AfD process within the next 12 hours, I will write about it. Holding someone's reputation hostage is not very nice. --TaranRampersad 20:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Bwithh's research. -- Kinu t /c  20:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Immediately - I didn't ask for the article, I find fault in the way the entry has been handled, and I find fault with Wikipedia policy as related to those who are the people who do communicate about issues related to the digital divide. That most of my work is not verifiable on the internet through sources other than myself isn't self promotion, it was because I was and am the only person who writes about the things I have. Along with this delete, I would like the article 'Taran Rampersad' to NEVER be added to the Wikipedia without my explicit permission. As the subject of the AfD, when I say delete it should be done. So do it. Now. --TaranRampersad 21:04, 15 December 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.