Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Taran Rampersad

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)