Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameer Wankhede

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cryptic (talk | contribs) at 15:11, 15 August 2022 (Listed again at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 15). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. This was a difficult AfD to parse through. On the surface, there are significantly more delete votes than keep votes (I count about 24 delete and 16 keep). There was some obvious rampant socking and votes by SPAs, and it seems like the majority of those voters were voting to keep the article. This was a very widely attended AfD, and the delete voters had a significant numerical advantage.

When we get down to the major policy arguments on both sides, the delete voters are mainly arguing that the subject of the article is an unremarkable government worker who is clearly not a public figure, the subject lacks significant coverage required by WP:GNG, and that the coverage that this individual has received is mostly surrounding a single event, which would invalidate his eligibility for an article per WP:BLP1E. The keep voters are primarily countering that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and that the subject has actually been a notable player in multiple notable events spanning a decade.

Reviewing these arguments, it is difficult to accept the argument that the subject has not received significant coverage. At least a few articles that were presented in this discussion demonstrate clear significant coverage. So, that only leaves us to determine whether BLP1E applies. The vast majority of sources in the article focus on the recent event that began in late 2020. While keep voters point to a few remaining sources from prior to 2020, several editors convincingly argue that these sources have reliability issues, and/or do not cover the subject in a significant way, and/or do not describe particularly notable events beyond everyday news stories.

While this is a borderline case, I believe there is sufficient consensus to delete the article primarily due to WP:BLP1E. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Wankhede

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Sameer Wankhede (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Officer covered for updates related to WP:1EVENT of alleged crime done by others. Venkat TL (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There numerous officers part of UPSC and come to limelight only when celebrities are involved. User:Vinodmahalingam 03:55, 4 November 2024 UTC [refresh], 03:55, Monday, November 4, 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not a notable one. For such, there will be floods of IRC/IAS officers in Wikipedia. User:Arunudoy 07:03, 27 October 2021 (IST)
Agree with this opinion. This page existed before the controversy; the subject was already a notable person with moderate amount of media coverage, especially with the actor Sushant Singh Rajput's case. To say they are known for WP:1EVENT is disingenious. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 16:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In addition to the references mentioned in the article, Times of India, has published an articles of some of his previous cases from 2011 onwards. https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/not-just-aryan-khan-shah-rukh-khan-these-bollywood-celebs-have-also-faced-sameer-wankhede-in-the-past/photostory/87310095.cms
Please note this article or content is currently not in the article. Advait (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not occasional if the coverage is happening for more than 2 years. 106.214.126.2 (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP is not violated only because of the existence of a biographical article. It makes no sense in saying that a subject's coverage "was because celebrities were involved", because then you would also want to delete the Oscar-related pages. LearnIndology (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He is currently accused of multiple things including trying to extort money for the release of the actor's son[4] so having an article on him violates WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Wankhede is not notable, in 2020 the death of Sushant Singh Rajput was a notable event but Wankhede himself didn't receive significant coverage before that. Per the later policy, even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. In 2021, he is in news for arresting an actor's son, and interrogating other celebrities[5]. Again celebrities are involved. It is not even a big case, no dugs was found from the actor's son and the drugs his friend was carrying was very little in quantity. The case is getting attention only because he is the son of Bollywood's biggest actor. I don't know what do you mean by deleting Oscar related pages. Oscar is an internationally recognized award and this is not a notable case. I suggest the closing admin to see this[6] news article to understand the chronology of the events. Eevee01(talk) 04:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not get deleted only because some particular parts of the person's events can't be included, see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Your personal reflection about Aryan Khan's arrest has nothing to do with WP:GNG. LearnIndology (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about violation of Wankhede's BLP. He is not a notable person and having an article on him violates BLP, because currently he is an accused. User Mukt has re-wrote the entire article and now most BLP related issues are solved, see this. But still it won't change the fact that Wankhede is not notable. He is getting attention only because of the involvement of the celebrities. Eevee01(talk) 13:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No significance notability of the person in the past other than present controversy. Person will disappear from the news once matter is settled. Moreover, you would rarely find any mention of the person in news before October or September 2021.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 13:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So delete all articles that got coverage by 2020? You are wrong even if you want others to believe in that. The article shows the subject had significant coverage since 2013.[7] LearnIndology (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LearnIndology I have found this on WP:RS noticeboard. Are there any major news outlets who have articles on him before 2020. Eevee01(talk) 14:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Absolutely passes WP:GNG as reliable sources from 2020 and 2021 have provided significant coverage to the subject. WP:BLP1E is even less of a criteria at this stage thanks to the recent drug-related arrests and political mudslinging which has made the subject even more notable. LearnIndology (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Investigating or arresting someone does not make the investigator notable for Wikipedia.
    • Political mudslinging does not make anyone notable for Wikipedia. In fact Political mudslinging is not even added here even though they find place in Newspaper.
    • There is no such rule of notability based on arrests or mudslinging as you are claiming. If there is then please show. Please read WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Venkat TL (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if I were to entertain your non-policy based opinion then you are ought to be aware that now there is a dispute about his caste certification which has nothing to do with any his crime-related investigation.[8] Your argument was "WP:1EVENT" which has been already punctured as reliable sources from 2020 and 2021 have provided significant coverage to the subject concerning issues different from each other. You need to only remember that as long as there are multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail, there is no need to worry about notability. LearnIndology (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That dispute is worthy material for newspapers not encyclopedia. Every garbage that gets published need not find its way into an online encyclopedia. Let this guy become chief of CBI or get a Padma or achieve something. Investigating someone does not make a person notable, even though the newspapers talk about him in their coverage of the crime investigation. Venkat TL (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources mentioned above. Has gained significant attention of reliable sources unrelated to arrest of Aryan Khan. -----Yoonadue (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm probably missing something but why are we even considering keeping this article? The "Personal life" section contains rather odd musings on this person's relationship with Muslims that looks more like an editor's obsession with things Islamic rather than with things encyclopedic. The rest: an IAS officer who detained an actor, who is investigating a case which appears to involve actors, and who is investigating a drug case that apparently doesn't even merit an article on Wikipedia. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Indian Revenue Service not Indian Administrative Service. Central Civil Service again not All India. The person is irrelevant and not notable. He is not a Nobel laureate or a revolutionary leader for anyone to preserve this article. The individual is just a government worker doing a job and getting media attention because the son of a major actor (not the arrest of the actor itself) did drugs and in jail. Arresting or investigating officers of other countries don't have Wikipedia encyclopedia article or biographies at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.53.153 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Similar to above, I can't see how this is anything beyond BLP1E at best. Ravensfire (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The India Today article published 11 months ago satisfies WP:SIGCOV [9] talks about his career since 2011. Agree with GreaterPoncence655 that WP:1EVENT/BLP1E is being grossly misrepresented. TolWol56 (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is an open platform of useful & notable events. Passes WP:GNG & WP:EVENT criterion as there have been multiple events surrounding Wankhade. He is himself subject to the investigation now. Passes WP:GOLDENRULE
  • Such important content should not be deleted from Wikipedia. Dhy.rjw (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic and WP:NOTNP. Simply some investigating officer who came in the news because he investigated some celebrities.LukeEmily (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So when I look at the sources in this article, a lot of them are terrible, and the article definitely needs revision. The basic problem with Indian sources is well summarized in our article on Paid news in India. But our redoubtable reliable sources analysts have (of course) formed views about which Indian sources are reliable. They've evaluated the Indian Express as a good one: see WP:INDIANEXP. And this article cites an Indian Express source here. They have not evaluated the Hindustan Times but it's been my experience that Wikipedians do accept the Hindustan Times as a reliable source in cases where it's also confirmed by The Indian Express (or The Hindu which is the other top-reliability news source native to India, see WP:THEHINDU). So on the basis of our normal custom and practice on Indian language sources, I'll buy those two a general notability guideline pass.
    It's then claimed that Wankhede is only notable for one event, which would be the scheduled caste quota dispute. But I don't buy that either. The event was in 2021, but I can see other news sources here and here which pre-date the scheduled caste issue. They're reporting in one case that he's been attacked and threatened while at work -- hardly indicative of paid news or COI, in my view -- and in another case that he's refused security cover. So it's not coverage of one event.
    After subtracting these two arguments from the debate, I don't see a convincing argument for deletion. The article definitely has problems but in my view they qualify as fixable. Keep.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall:, the 1event they are talking about precedes the caste quota event. I reached a slightly different conclusion here but decided to delete my neutral !vote after more RS were added. - hako9 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E does apply here, the one event being his drug related investigation against Aryan Khan, who is the son of Shah Rukh Khan. It also involves allegations against Wankhede for extortion in the same case, a related allegation of fraud on his part (i.e scheduled caste issue), an attack on him, etc. Parts of the event can't be picked out and considered separate events. There is some marginal coverage of him before this, in connection with investigations against other celebrities, although these are all arguably related as well. There is a lot of tabloid coverage, most of the focus is on the celebrities themselves, while the subject has no apparent claim of significance.
In any case this is borderline and we should err on the side of caution per WP:BLPCRIME which states that "[f]or individuals who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." If the article is kept, we will have to proportionally represent the topic in the manner covered by reliable sources and it will end up being predominantly composed of the allegations against Aryan Khan who is not a notable figure as well as all those against Wankhede who is not a public figure. Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is that one event causing all of this coverage, why are there sources from 2013?—S Marshall T/C 08:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      There is one article from 2013 about a routine incident in the city (i.e local) newspaper Mumbai Mirror and nothing else anywhere till 2020. I don't think that's sufficient. What are the other sources? Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mumbai Mirror and Sunday Guardian.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Didn't see the Sunday Guardian one and I'm not sure whether that can be considered an RS. In any case, as I have already said this is borderline and we should not be building an article on a BLP which would almost entirely be about criminal allegations. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, yes, I understand your concern about whether the Sunday Guardian is reliable. It's not one that the community has evaluated for reliability. I'm not clear where the burden of proof lies here. Do you feel it's for me to demonstrate the newspaper's reliability, or would you say that it's for you to demonstrate its unreliability?
              I do sort-of recognize the argument that the Mumbai Mirror is "local coverage", but in my view it founders on the fact that the "local" region, the city of Mumbai, is colossal. There are quite a few nations with smaller populations than Mumbai. When we're dealing with countries as populous as India, the criticism that a source is "local" loses some of its impact for me.
              I'm not convinced by the criticism that the Mumbai Mirror article is "routine coverage", either. To my British eyes, having never set foot in India, the story appears newsworthy and even somewhat remarkable.
              I do think there are sources that go some way beyond the criminal behaviour allegations.—S Marshall T/C 10:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              I mean, I myself am not certain if SG should be considered outright unreliable although I can point to one obvious mistake in their article itself. It refers to him as an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer working for a Tax Department which doesn't make sense since that would fall under Indian Revenue Service (IRS), compare that with the contemporaneous Mumbai Mirror article which identifies him as a customs official. The latter is accurate as it's fairly clear in the recent coverage of him that he is posted at customs and is with the IRS.
              Yes, Mumbai Mirror does cover a populous region but it's not any different from any other major city elsewhere in the world, wouldn't you consider a single piece in say a London specific newspaper (if that exists) to be local coverage? And all that their article says is that a mid ranking official refused security after receiving death threats. It's peculiar but it just reads like any other human interest piece to me, I don't know what encyclopedic value it brings.
              Regarding the SG article, can't say if the rest of their material is accurate, a lot of it is just based on quoting him and even if it was to be considered reliable, it's hardly a mainstream newspaper i.e, it's a weekly with a very low circulation, the Mirror itself has exponentially more despite SG being published in three cities including both Mumbai and Delhi.
              In the end, I don't think it matters much, even if we somehow used both of the above, his predominant coverage is still indisputably the recent coverage. The two articles alone wouldn't have given him WP:BASIC notability, so it seems like a stretch to use them as additional coverage for WP:BLP1E to not apply. The primary issue I see is that while it may be possible to snip out information about the allegations, it would not be an accurate representation of the sources, since most of the information about the subject is contextualised with references to the allegations. So creating an article based on them doesn't seems consistent with the principle of taking additional care in article about living people. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • We certainly have London-specific newspapers, most prominently the Evening Standard. According to the most recent RSN discussion, there is no consensus as to its reliability, so that doesn't help us very much. I note wryly from that discussion that it doesn't even come up that the Evening Standard might be "local". Lots of English people doing the evaluation there, of course.
                • It does seem to be widely believed that we need to delete negative articles about living people. I don't think that's quite what our rules say. WP:BLP is about unsourced negative information about living people. It doesn't require us to whitewash articles where the sources say negative things.
                • You're clearly right to say that most of the coverage about this gentleman is recent and there are only a couple of examples of coverage from 2013. I think there are two matters that the sources talk about in any detail: the criminal investigation and the scheduled caste issue. My position is that these two things don't meet any reasonable definition of "one event". I also don't believe that they're routine. I'm not saying they're of earth-shattering importance, but I do feel that if similar events took place in New York, the newspapers there would cover them, and so would Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  Our rules do say that we should avoid including accusations of crimes (without a conviction) when it concerns individuals who are not public figures. The criminal investigation and scheduled caste issue (which is the forgery allegation) are all framed as part of the same story by the newspapers; for instance see The Hindu overview, where it describes how the allegations against Wankhede rose out of his investigation ([11]), the Hindustan Times has consistently marked developments around the caste certificate under the "Aryan Khan case" ([12], [13], [14]), the Indian Express covers them simultaneously ([15]), etc. The recent coverage is not routine but it's part of a single event. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets WP:GNG as per the article that does not even include that "one event" in question for correct reasons. The !delete voters that are having issue with the subject's activities or Khan's arrest should sort it outside Wikipedia. desmay (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or perhaps, instead of misrepresenting the arguments of "!delete voter", you could take a look at the references in the article for a start? The criminal allegations were removed from the article, while the remaining material is entirely sourced from references that are about the allegations or are about details related to those allegations. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No indication of significance. Seem to be a man doing his job. scope_creepTalk 20:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not pass WP:BASIC due to a lack of significant coverage. ––FormalDude talk 03:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sameer_Wankhede&oldid=1104540524"