Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maridhas Malaichamy

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 no consensus. There are good arguments on both sides so closing as "no consensus", but I must note that the "Keep" !votes are slightly stronger. Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maridhas Malaichamy

Maridhas Malaichamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

A non-notable youtuber with no WP:SIGCOV other than routine media coverage for police booking him for implying the Muslim community for the spread of COVID-19[1], for an email-forgery case[2] and for his subsequent arrest.

He has written two self-published books (Why I support Narendra Modi, Why I oppose urban naxals) supporting the ruling BJP and fails WP:AUTHOR. The subject was only known as "youtuber" in nearly all reliable sources and not one source refers to him as an "activist". - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Several unreliable news outlets which report significantly about the subject including Opindia./com(RSP entry), Swarajyamag./com(RSP entry), tfipost./com were blacklisted in Wikipedia over fake news, persistent abuse and doxing several Indian Wiki editors.- SUN EYE 1 04:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has POV issues and maybe "activist" isn't the best descriptor. But he seems notable. The news coverage I could find isn't WP:ROUTINE. Routine would mean getting arrested for drunk driving and having that reported in a newspaper. This guy seems to have been accused of many serious crimes and has plenty of articles covering said allegations many of which are included in the Wikipedia article right now. The newspapers certainly seem to believe he's important given they're giving coverage of his appeals. [3] In my experience newspapers don't care about the ultimate outcome of cases unless its somewhat important. Additionally, WP:CRIME doesn't apply here, as due to the nature of the offenses that are alleged, there's no singular identifiable person who would be considered the "victim". That isn't to say I'm saying he's allegedly committed "victimless crimes" but that the alleged "victim" here would be the Indian Muslim community or something along those lines, and it would be inappropriate to put all of our coverage of this guy in an article on such a broad topic. There's also no "main crime" since the Maridhas has been alleged to have done/said a lot of bad things. I'd say this guy passes the WP:GNG and the WP:CRIME threshold for his own article.Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello Chess, thanks for the comment, there is almost no Significant coverage about his background or what he is. All the news coverage are about the alleged crimes and religious hate speech for which he was booked and arrested. The coverage is due to social media outrage among the Hindu nationalist right-wing circles in social media. I don't think it passes WP:CRIME, the subject is not yet convicted, the policy states Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. Please note, the right-wing sites like opinida./com, swarajyamag./com and tfipost./com which are the only ones who cover significantly about this guy are blacklisted in Wiki for abuse, fakenews and doxxing several Indian wiki editors.[4][5] Thanks- SUN EYE 1 04:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I see tons of articles in the Indian Express about him. [6] 6 by my count. Meanwhile 18 articles in the Times of India about this guy. [7] This guy keeps getting arrested over and over again while the media continues to give him more and more attention. He's not really notable for his YouTube channel or his background or whatever, he's notable because he keeps criticizing the government and possibly spreading conspiracy theories and the media constantly reports on him. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chess Please see WP:TOI, it is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. The media reported once during 2019 for a police complaint for fake news and promote enmity between religious groups, once during 2020 for a complaint filed by the police for Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings. The next coverage season started after 8th of this month when was booked and arrested by cyber crime police, arrested for a email forgery and for blaming Muslims for spreading COVID-19 and for his court verdict for a single case. That's all the coverage he got, two times in the last two years and this month. All of these coverage were only about his legal issues, nothing about what he has accomplished and no WP:SIGCOV. I don't think the subject passes WP:NBASIC. - SUN EYE 1 05:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  His "accomplishment" are his legal issues, it seems. The media reports on this guy getting arrested very often. You've provided plenty of sources to support that. If we take your claim that coverage of being arrested doesn't establish notability and extend it to its logical conclusion, then this guy could have hundreds of articles on him and full length books and still not meet notability criteria if they only cover his arrests. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not my claim, WP:CRIME states A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.. - SUN EYE 1 18:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And the whole crux of my original comment was such an article doesn't exist. What article would that be? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The defamation case filed against him by News18 can be incorporated in News18 Tamil Nadu or News 18. His comments about Muslims spreading COVID is already in COVID-19_pandemic_in_Tamil_Nadu#Misinformation_and_discrimination. His arrest about Helicopter crash is everyday politics in India, several people were also arrested all over the country for spreading misinformation on the very same incident[8], this can be incorporated into 2021 Indian Air Force Mil Mi-17 crash if possible. - SUN EYE 1 19:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete His notability seems to be more about his legal troubles rather than what he's accomplished. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For future reference, you don't need to add that many delsort tags. Curbon7 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Curbon7 I was unaware, will keep that in mind. Thanks - SUN EYE 1 04:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per Chess. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete his notability is about his legal problems than what he has accomplished WP:NOTNEWS applies the coverage is over his arrest and legal problems.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete this person fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. I looked at all sources online and tried improving the article. His 2 books are not notable. His criminal background cannot be appropriately covered without violating WP:BLPCRIME as he has not been convicted yet. If you remove the crimes, there is nothing to write about this WP:SUSPECT. It is common for politicians in Tamil Nadu to do some kind of controversial stunts to get publicity. This youtuber appears to be using the libel and insinuation as political stunts to gain youtube subscribers. There is absolutely zero achievement. Abusing others online and then getting WP:NOTNEWS type coverage for arrest should not qualify for getting Wikipedia articles. Or else every loud mouth will get a Wiki article. --Venkat TL (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The indivual in the article is mononymously know as Maridhas. Is that mononymous name important ? Well, if you click on find sources, it looks for "Maridhas Malaichamy". However, when I searched Maridhas, I found these articles (all credible sources: Wire, Hindu-1, Indian Express, Hindu-2, Hindu-3, Hindu-4, Hindu-5 and BBC in Tamizh). That's a handful. There are a few other sources that have publised on Maridhas that aren't in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. These don't necessarily mean 'unrealiable' (I haven't included them though). These are perhaps in addition to 6 - The Indian Express (again credible) articles already pointed out by User:Chess. Apart from these article, his name has poped up in a PhD dissertation submitted to the Teachers College, Columbia University, USA (The Transnational Consciousness of Second-Generation Indian American Teachers - page nos. 15,16,343) and a Masters thesis submitted to University of Ottawa (a Tweet Analysis System to Study Human Needs During COVID-19 Pandemic page 49). Therefore its not WP:BARE but passes (also per User:Chess) the GNG. Comment: I'm curious why WP:DSPROF, WP:DSBOSS, Journalism, News Media, Discrimination and WP:DTERRORISM have been added here. μTalk 21:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The nomination is not about the credibility of the sources. There is no WP:SIGCOV about this subject apart from arrest and complaints for his crimes. Can you provide sources with significant coverage apart from the routine coverage about his crimes which violates WP:CRIME. Trivial mentions from thesis of right-wing authors have no notability and are considered same as opinion pieces. Tweet Analysis System to Study Human Needs During COVID-19 Pandemic (available online) has nothing about him except a single hashtag saying #Maridhas. - SUN EYE 1 05:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Are we just going to dismiss any coverage of legal issues as not being "significant coverage" now? This guy has endless coverage of his legal issues in detail. We might as well delete every page we have on serial killers at this point. I'll nom Meyer Lansky right now. He wasn't convicted of anything and all the sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage about alleged criminal acts. Lansky was a gangster and illegal activities are par for the course. If we take a reducto ad absurdum and take your argument that coverage of alleged crimes does not demonstrate notability to its logical conclusion we

  should just delete any and all coverage of organized crime figures or anyone who wasn't convicted of crimes they were alleged to have committed. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not dismissing the coverage about his arrests, the available sources are only about his legal issues and detention and nothing else. This subject is a Youtuber who was arrested and the media reported the arrest as usual. This is everyday Indian politics. I'll say it one more time; there is no coverage about him or his role as a youtuber other than his alleged crimes and detention and this violates WP:CRIME. Meyer Lansky has coverage about his early life other than his crimes although he is unrelated to this AfD, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are multiple people covered in Indian media everyday of repeated crimes and Maridhas is no different. - SUN EYE 1 07:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Chess, a single arrest would fall under WP:SUSPECT but multiple arrests and coverage goes beyond that. At this point, this is significant coverage. --hroest 16:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hannes Röst Where is the source you are claiming "significant coverage"? 2 arrests with WP:NOTNEWS type coverage of WP:SUSPECT does not make the subject notable. Remember this if kept is going to be a wholly negative BLP consisting of allegations and accusations. Something that we should avoid. Venkat TL (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, but news coverage is our number one source of determining notability in practice. NOTNEWS doesn't mean we just ignore news coverage. These are a bunch of arrests over a sustained period of time. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So according to you every pickpocket with more than one arrest and WP:NOTNEWS article deserves a wikipedia article. Hope you see the fallacy of your position. Venkat TL (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If said pickpocket had dozens of articles on his multiple arrests, then yes. See George Barrington, a very important pickpocket who has been arrested many times and had plenty of coverage on his life. We have a whole category Category:Pickpockets on notable pickpockets. By the way, I don't really know why you keep wikilinking WP:NOTNEWS in the context you are. Are you trying to say that the newspaper articles themselves are WP:NOTNEWS? Because you've wikilinked it three time saying that the sources/articles themselves are WP:NOTNEWS and I'm confused as to how they're WP:NOTNEWS. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But you are not asserting Importance in any way. This guy get arrested. 4 news papers published WP:NOTNEWS reports. You are calling them different. No. Moreover the depth of coverage is severely lacking. The subject has not done anything worth a wikipedia article. The sources are only covering the WP:NOTNEWS of the arrest. WP:BLPCRIME applies. Venkat TL (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What are you even saying at this point? How is it possible that newspaper articles are WP:NOTNEWS? You appear to be misapplying WP:NOTNEWS in a a very specious fashion. The entity that is not supposed to be news is Wikipedia itself. The header is "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Our own articles are not supposed to be newspaper articles and singular news events are often not notable. WP:NOTNEWS is not a guideline or policy used to discard sources from satisfying our notability criteria because they happen to be news articles. It especially isn't a guideline or policy used to discard sources because the sources themselves are not news articles. Every day at AfD we use newspaper articles to determine notability. Go look at pretty much any AfD that resulted in keep. The majority of them cite newspaper articles as sources used to establish notability.

  Here is a person who has been arrested multiple times for a variety of different alleged crimes. Muon has provided a bunch of sources covering these arrests. How does this not count as WP:SIGCOV? It's literally significant coverage. Where are you pulling this rule that "coverage of arrests isn't WP:SIGCOV" from? It's absurd. Pretty much all of those sources address the topic (Maridhas) directly. They do so in detail, providing lengthy coverage of this person's (alleged) activities.

  Your argument that WP:BLPCRIME applies here is also really questionable. Go read WP:LOWPROFILE. This is a person who openly goes out there and says stuff. He pretty much fits every single criteria listed to be a "high profile" individual. Maridhas actively seeks media attention by being a YouTuber. He actively engages in promotional activities for himself. He "performs" by hosting his own YouTube channel that the entire world can see and the policy says he produces books to promote himself. He seeks a high profile position as a YouTuber, a high-profile job. Maridhas doesn't in any way satisfy WP:NPF. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You are claiming he passes GNG, which are the WP:THREE sources you are basing your claims on? Venkat TL (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  None of the sources describes him as a criminal, he is not yet convicted. All the criminal cases are related to his YouTube videos which is his profession. The If we consider himself as a WP:CREATIVE, he fails all the criteria here;

  • The subject is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  • The subject is not is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique,
  • The subject has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.
  • The subject's works has not become a significant monument, been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won significant critical attention.

  The number of subscribers are the only of the reason for his coverage. If the number of his subscribers is a reason for his notability, then there are literally a thousand Youtubers will more subscribers than him in the Tamil Youtube circle alone. There are zero sources for his work on YouTube. The arrests started only after December 9th. Are we going to create an article to list all his alleged crimes? - SUN EYE 1 09:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  SNGs don't "override" the GNG except for WP:NCORP. An article can satisfy an SNG or the GNG in most cases. You can't just ignore the GNG here 4and perform mental gymnastics to justify it. Also, here are two sources from before December. [9] [10] The second one covers an arrest. You yourself brought up an April 2020 source covering an arrest of him, which contradicts your claim now that "the arrests started only after December 9th." [11] You are blatantly lying about the state of the sourcing. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For reference this is the source that I am referring to. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I already said it does not passes WP:SIGCOV, if you believe otherwise, let the closing admin decide. Read the source properly before accusing me of "blatantly lying", it clearly states he was "booked", filing a First information report in India is not arrest or detention. If you can't continue with a WP:CIVIL discussion without making baseless accusations, I don't want to continue discussing with you. - SUN EYE 1 19:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Define "booked" because I've always heard it used as being arrested. If it means something else in India, I apologize. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In India, it means to register a case, see this for example. The police may later continue with a First information report if it is necessary and arrest or detention comes after that. - SUN EYE 1 19:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for attempting to conclusions and saying otherwise. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries. - SUN EYE 1 13:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Here is a SIRS table I have made for fun. I can update this table with as many sources as we need. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Chess
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"Maridhas arrested by DMK out of vendetta, claims BJP chief"	Not affiliated with Maridhas	See WP:THEHINDU	Article deals mainly with Maridhas and a tweet he made	✔ Yes
"Held again, YouTuber Maridhas moves fresh petition in Madras High Court"		See WP:INDIANEXP	Article mentions Maridhas in the headline, body of the article covers a video he made	✔ Yes
"YouTuber Maridhas remanded in Chennai in connection with fake email case"		See WP:THEHINDU	Article mentions Maridhas in the headline, provides significant coverage of an email he allegedly forged	✔ Yes
"Crime Branch books Youtuber Maridhas for forgery, hacking"		See WP:THEHINDU	Article covers the arrest of Maridhas for the aforementioned email he allegedly forged	✔ Yes
"YouTuber Maridhas appears before Central Crime Branch"		See WP:THEHINDU	Article deals with the ongoing saga of the alleged email forgery	✔ Yes
"YouTuber Maridhas moves HC again for relief"		See WP:THEHINDU	Article provides significant coverage of legal troubles stemming from the video he made mentioned in source 2	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Comment I disagree with your assessment of depth of coverage. See my comments in the table. Venkat TL (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Venkat TL
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"Maridhas arrested by DMK out of vendetta, claims BJP chief" 10 December 2021			Short WP:NOTNEWS article only covers the arrest and the accusation. No Biography material included.	✘ No
"Held again, YouTuber Maridhas moves fresh petition in Madras High Court" 18 December 2021			Short WP:NOTNEWS article only covers the arrest and the accusation. No Biography material included.	✘ No
"YouTuber Maridhas remanded in Chennai in connection with fake email case" 13 December 2021			Short WP:NOTNEWS article only covers the arrest and the accusation. No Biography material included.	✘ No
"Crime Branch books Youtuber Maridhas for forgery, hacking" 24 July 2020			Short WP:NOTNEWS article only covers the arrest and the accusation. No Biography material included.	✘ No
"YouTuber Maridhas appears before Central Crime Branch" 10 August 2021			Short WP:NOTNEWS article only covers the arrest and the accusation. No Biography material included.	✘ No
"YouTuber Maridhas moves HC again for relief" 17 December 2021			Short WP:NOTNEWS article only covers the legal steps taken and the accusation. No Biography material included.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Keep. In-depth news coverage of his activities over multiple years, for multiple incidents, makes a clear pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein So I assume, people on Wikipedia will have no problem if whatever is written about his "alleged" crimes is put into his Wikipedia bio. WP:BLPCRIME prohibits a lot of such stuff, but it seems you all would love to include those prohibited things since that is what you people are basing your comments on. @Muon @Superastig. Venkat TL (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The stories I saw included headlines like "Madras high court quashes yet another FIR against YouTuber Maridhas" suggesting that the legal accusations have been resolved. BLPCRIME prevents us from reporting on accusations that have not been resolved, but in cases where they have been resolved (including when, as seems to be the case here, the accused was exonerated), I don't think there is any obstacles to reporting the case and its outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will update more info on these cases. Venkat TL (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – 1). All sources that appeared after December 2020 fails to satisfy WP:GNG since they are about arrests, FIRs etc. The first FIR was registered in December 2020, but allegations or accusations seems fails to qualify WP:CRIME. Since the subject is not convicted by court and hence it fails WP:CRIME. WP:BLP must conform WP:CRIME to avoid BLP violation.

2). Some sources discussion subject's book because it is about a politician. None of the sources discussion discuss it as required by WP:NBOOK, and thus it fails to pass significant coverage. Do we have any source that talks about it independently? in fact, no.

3). If there are any non-trivial/independent source(s) about the subject published before December 2020, i will be glad to struck my del vote. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on all the counts listed above. Thanks for summarizing the points. There are no GNG sources that satisfy the depth criteria.

Note (To the closing admin): Since this is a WP:SUSPECT case and there are strong negative BLP concerns, please give appropriate weightage to comments on the adherence to policy and evidence provided (or lack of evidence) in the comments. A no consensus, is in effect, a keep, an undesirable outcome in my opinion. A negative BLP will affect the subject in real life who is undergoing trial. Please use admin discretion. Venkat TL (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2022 (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.