Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INX Media case

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 keep. Tone 19:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

INX Media case

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Routine scandal coverage with a risk for negative BLP. WP:NOTNEWS. Does not meet WP:NCRIME. -- Dloh cier ekim 18:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Snow Keep Notable scam of India which had recieved significant coverage in the Indian Media. Passes WP:GNG and this has added enclyclopedic content further on wikipedia.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 18:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harshil169: No, as scams and political mudslinging go, this is just more routine mudslinging coverage.-- Dloh cier ekim 18:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Dlohcierekim: I shifted your comment below mine one because I think you pinged me at wrong place by mentioning under someone's comment. No , This is not routine and mudslinging coverage. Inquiry on this case was happening at least from 4 years. Subramanian Swamy went to Supreme court and Delhi high court, to various investigative agencies. Karti Chidambaram-Son of P. Chidambaram was arrested in 2018 by ED for inquiry regarding this case. The case is long pending and it is alleged that Chidambaram took bribe when he was finance minister means in 2007. It is obvious that it provides negative image for Chidambaram but that doesn't mean page can't be created. This page will enclyclopedic content on the Wikipedia and will serve the purpose. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read what snow keep means. One should know something well before using it. :)--DBig Xrayᗙ 06:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom User:Dlohcierekim that it fails WP:NOTNEWS and Does not meet WP:NCRIME. There is special interest from political opposers into this, but it does not mean we will water down our BLP requirements. This is an ongoing enquiry, nothing is proved yet. Only political mudslinging to gain political points. per WP:ATTACKPAGE --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see anything about the case on this page, only about one person's arrest. There is probably material out there for a page, but this is not the way to go about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Changing my !vote as the content has significantly improved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:RAPID and extensive coverage from Indian media develioping into a major political and financial scandal,Asian Age Times Now ,India Today ,The Economic Times,Business Standard,Firstpost,News18,Indian Express ,,OutlookTimes of India earlier and almost all major Indian major newspapers will cover this case particurly after P. Chidambaram 's arrest even the BBC mentions it briefly .Note this is ongoing court case and it will get extensive media coverage.Both P. Chidambaram and his son Karti Chidambaram are clearly WP:PUBLICFIGURE in India my a mile.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all about P. Chidambaram, who already has a page. Where is any information about the case? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is extensive coverage about the case and expect more coverage about the case after his arrest ,it is ongoing these are several articles about the case.
  - What the INX Media case is about ,Times of India
  - WHAT IS INX MEDIA CASE , Business Standard ,
  - Explained: What is INX Media case against P Chidambaram? , Indian Express
  - INX Media case: Timeline of scam that has CBI, ED looking for P Chidambaram , India Today
  - Chronology of events in INX media corruption case , Deccan Chronicle
  - What is INX Media case? , Times Now. Clearly passes WP:GNG and do expect to be lasting as this very high profile case. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Now we know the information exists. The next question is, do we have anybody interested in writing a proper page on it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had classified the points and organised in a better way to make them readable. However, I am ready for contributing in this article. Extensive information is available on various source and this is not small and routine scandal. Former Home Minister and his son is directly involved in the case, court has denied them bail, investigation is happening atleast since 2016 and people like Subramanian Swamy took this court to the government,courts and various agencies. This deserves Wikipedia page; this is not possible to include in the existing page of Chidambaram. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pharaoh of the Wizards, mostly we agree at AfDs but sad to see us strongly disagreeing here. Not everything that gets printed in newspapers get its own article. As the nom had elucidated above Wikipedia has strong bar for BLP and content that may have negative impact on a person in real life. Do we really want to create a page full of allegations, that is basically going to serve as an attack page on the subject ? Nothing is proven at this point of time and this in itself is strong reason to delete the page. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your reply.Feel the case is notable and it is one of the big cases in India which will be getting substantial media both local and International coverage which is clearly WP:RS .Now the subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.However we do need to include the the subject has denied such allegationsand accusations of political vendatta in the article . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pharaoh of the Wizards if it is noteworthy, add it into the bio, dont create a seperate WP:ATTACKPAGE on it. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @DBigXray: This is a BJP case.... this is alleged too....isnt this an attack page? Unnao rape case - Propaganda page, why should this go and the BJP one stay? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOM. --Gazal world (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is surely no need for a separate distinct breakout sub-article about this when INX Media is such a short and poor article. Uncle G (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a beginner, just could give a suggestion. Why don't we just add this case to original INX Media and make INX Media artical better? Flight112b (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be the way that I would do it. Indeed, that has been the way that I did it, with I Monetary Advisory, which you will note is not at its original title of IMA scam. There is no need to include "case" here any more than there was to include "scam" there. Those are headlinese and not in accordance with how Wikipedia articles are named. The actual names of the subjects are the companies.
    Note also that I Monetary Advisory does not include arrests or politican-makes-pronouncement non-facts, and is not spread out in pieces across the biographies of the people involved.
    Incidentally note that we are still missing Special Investigation Team (India), which is not a Special Investigation Team by my reckoning. ☺
    Uncle G (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Flight112b Why don't we just add this... because it is an WP:ATTACKPAGE--DBig Xrayᗙ 09:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @DBigXray: Isn't this an attack page then? Why should this go and that stay? - Unnao rape case - DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major scam that is right now being investigated by the High Court with a former cabinet minister and incumbent MP facing arrest. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- … for which we already had an article on the company. Uncle G (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The scam is not related to company alone. Scam is related to four bodies, IMX, Mexis, Aircel and Chidambaram father and son who allegedly took bribe for giving them permission or that sort of. These much information can’t be added on everyone’s Wikipedia page, so, it’s perfect to have different Wikipedia page dedicated to INX Media case and Aircel-Maxis case which both are different and detailed. Regards,— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scam ? or Allegations of Scam ? Has there been any convictions ? Any indictments ? You are missing the central problem here and beating about the bush. Understand that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER that will start create WP:ATTACKPAGE articles on the basis of unvetted and unproven allegations to score politicial brownie points by becoming a means of WP:PROPAGANDA. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Major allegations of a scam. Nevertheless, it still satisfies WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Unnao rape case - this article is alleged. Why did no one complain when I created this page? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OSE lets not get into WhatabouteryDBig Xrayᗙ 11:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rsrikanth05, When an article is being used as an WP:ATTACKPAGE which negatively harms a WP:BLP then the bar is much much higher. WP:GNG cannot be used to justify attackpages. Almost every attackpage ever created on wikipedia contains newspaper coverages and yet they are deleted. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: If the person is allegded in a major scam it may seem like an attack page, but at that rate every alleged scam and case is an attack page. Don't randomly throw around Wikipedia policies please. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: Exactly! Allegations were made by Rajya Sabha MP and former national president of Janta Party which are not minor. @DBigXray: attack page is the page in which no source or poor sources are available. This is not case here; one user has already quoted various articles and allegations regarding scam. If Unnao rape case can have page, which has same standard of just allegations, then this also should have page. This page also harm reputation of Kuldeep Singh Sengar. Also, the subject is classic case of WP:NEGATIVESPIN in which unnecessary length of controversy will be increased in Chidambaram’s Wikipedia page.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a major scam of political corruption in India involving then Finance and Home minister of the country. Shyamsunder (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable topic passing GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason for this article to be deleted as per wikipedia deletion policy. This article definitely needs to be improved with addition of content but that will be done in the coming days. This article is related to a high profile case and hence the politician and there supports might be asking for deletion. But that should not be a ground of deletion at all. The article is not maligning any person and if it is, then it should be corrected rather than deleting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityak01 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this issue is being raised in the media for quite some time and has gained a lot of attention. The article needs to have some more details so that it can qualify for an article. clickheretogototheuserpageofAggarwala2727 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Kautilya3: Why was this article moved from INX Media case to INX Media case against P. Chidambaram? Please remember WP:AFDEQ. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going post an explanation here after the page move, but got too tired at that point.

I moved the page to a title that correctly describes its content. From the first sentence to the last, this page is only about the case against P. Chidambaram, not one on INX Media. I also retitled a section that called itself "Investigation" but only described the arrest of the subject. This page is likely to show up high on Google hits as the case hots up, and it is important to present a correct picture to the readers, much more so than our internal bureaucratic processes.

I realize that the page move makes this AfD somewhat of a "mistrial". Perhaps it should be withdrawn so that a more appropriate AfD on the grounds of WP:POVFORK can be brought forward? Dlohcierekim, thoughts? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think moving it during the AfD unnecessarily complicated things. And no "mistrial". The AfD and/or the content must rise and fall on their merits regardless of what the name of the article has been changed to. Noting that this is mostly a page designed to attack a particular person does, in my mind, strengthen the argument for deletion.-- Dloh cier ekim 09:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original intent of the page was to cover the complete INX Media case. You moved it to make it focus only about Chidambaram thus diluting the topic and making it look like a POVFORK. One can maliciously again move it to "Chidambaram's arrest in INX Media case" and thus make it more strong case for POVyness. Does the article not talk about Mukerjea and Chidambaram's son? The article was AFDed within a day not leaving time to add much info. All the arguments calling for deletion for being fork should be quashed as those are content issues, not of notability of topic. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to move it back if you expand the content to cover the whole case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable scam. --Ashok Talk 18:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. ∯WBG^converse 14:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable scam. I can volunteer to improve the page. Csgir (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic but article needs improvement. If you have an issue with the article's tone/content, discuss it at the relevant talk page instead of incorrectly citing ATTACKPAGE at AfD. Dee 03 18:50, 27 August 2019 (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.