Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taran Rampersad (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Taran Rampersad
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)
- 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 [1] 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)
- 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 [1] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
