Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 7

Berozgaar Professors (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page should not be deleted because I have made every possible effort is maintaining a neutral point of view. I have only presented the facts and described them in brief. Previously my article was deleted for advertising, so I looked upon it and really found it biased, but this version of the article is neutral. This page is also a member of the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies" which protects the rights of companies to make a page about themselves. The quality and importance of the article should be directed by Wikipedia's portal for companies. I am not promoting anything, I'm just sticking to the facts. I talked with one of the administrators of Wikipedia who has been improving WP for over 18 years. He said if you are affiliated with the page, you need to declare a conflict of interest, which I did of the article's talk page using the template "connected contributor (paid)". This template can only be applied to talk pages, that's exactly what I did. After all this, it still got nominated for speedy deletion and got deleted stating that my page had no importance. Like it definitely has importance, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to hold information about topics. The Wikiproject companies clearly state that companies need to be expanded over Wikipedia. I had submitted my page under the Wikiproject Companies portal, which is a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. One other thing is that I contested the speedy deletion of the page, but the admin never replied or gave any response to my statements. Anyways, thanks again and please restore the page to as is. Enormous Efrit (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think you are slightly misguided about what wiki project companies or any project is. The subject is not notable and hence it was deleted. I suggest you read WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is an A7, and the nominator doesn't dispute substantively that there is no credible indication of importance; Wikipedia holding information about topics isn't it. Other statements by the nominator aren't relevant for challenging speedy deletion under this criterion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we have a tempundelete of both page and talk page please? Among other matters I'd like to check whether this user's attempt to contest the speedy deletion was handled with sufficient kindness and what guidance, if any, was offered to them.—S Marshall T/C 09:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you Cryptic!—S Marshall T/C 09:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So, my basic problem with this is that this user has had the same article declined at CSD and speedily deleted on several occasions, has read our instructions and followed the process to contest the speedy, and has been virtually ignored. Nowhere in the process did anyone use anything but a templated message to them, and that makes me sad. We used to try to engage with new content creators but I don't see any evidence of that here.

  The nominator should emerge from this DRV with the knowledge that they have been heard and understood, a clear understanding of the reasons why we don't want to publish this article and an idea of the circumstances in which that decision would change. He's got all the way here because nobody's talked to him properly on the way.—S Marshall T/C 10:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (Later) I can see that there's a cursory conversation on User talk:Jimfbleak.

  Enormous Efrit, I'm sorry that you've come all this way without receiving what I would see as a clear explanation of our thinking. We do try to be better than this.

  I'm afraid that WikiProject Companies isn't quite what you say it is. It does not protect the "rights" of companies to make a page about themselves. I'm sorry to say that there is no such right. We are not obliged to publish an article on Berozgaar Professors, and we are definitely not going to publish one right now.

  Wikipedia is attractive to people who want to bring publicity to their enterprise. We rank very high in search engine rankings, and anyone can create an account and start an article, so it's very tempting to write here for the purpose of generating business. And we don't want it: such content creates such a burden on our editors to check, review and improve it and we just don't have enough volunteer time. So we've had to develop quick and efficient processes for identifying and removing such content. You've run headlong into those processes and they've become so efficient that hardly anyone has spoken to you like a human being. It's ghastly, really.

  Our rules about businesses say that businesses have to be "notable" before we will consider hosting an article about them. A business is "notable" when more than one reliable source writes about them. Our definition of "reliable source" is very detailed, so it has its own page (here). The sources in that article about Berozgaar Professors are very far short of the level of reliability that we require, and there is absolutely no chance at all of us publishing an article with only those sources. You need two really good ones.

  I wish you hadn't put in so much effort before learning this. Would you be willing to consider writing about something else instead?—S Marshall T/C 11:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse nothing in the article contains any indication of importance or significance, which was the reason for deletion. Apart from some links to the website which is the subject of the article none of the references cited even mention the subject, and these links largely don't support the statements they are cited for, e.g. a statement about the copyright restrictions on material they publish is sourced to some general information about copyright law (including US copyright law, which doesn't even apply in India). There is no "right" for companies to create pages about themselves on Wikipedia. I suggest the OP review the notability requirements for companies and websites and try using the articles for creation process instead. Hut 8.5 13:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They did, and it was declined with a template message.—S Marshall T/C 14:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resubmitting it would have been better than posting it to mainspace. The AfC submission was declined for not being adequately sourced, which was entirely reasonable as it didn't cite any references at all. Hut 8.5 17:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I CSD tagged this. The references (apart from their own website) didn't mention the company, and the article was "how to use the product" rather than "what is the company". This after they claim to have engaged with feedback. Perhaps the Teahouse people can teach the article creator more kindly; all I care is that this not be a mainspace article in anything remotely resembling the form it is presented in. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Respected Nomadicghumakkad, Alalch Emis, Hut 8.5, Cryptic, User:力, and most of all Marshall, thank you so much for participating in this discussion. I appreciate the time you spared me and deeply apologize for the inconvenience that I have caused. I now realize all the criteria that I must fulfill before publishing an article, and I promise I'll abide by it. The thing is, I was really confused about why the article was repeatedly being deleted. On a former occasion when it was deleted for advertisement, I knew what went wrong and how I could improve it. But in this case, the reason provided was a complex one, which thanks to Marshall, I've understood now. From the very beginning, I was only asking for an explanation as to what went wrong and why it was nominated for SD, but all I got was pre-formatted templates on my talk page which redirected to respective Wikipedia guidelines. Anyways, I've understood now what went wrong and how I can improve. Please understand that I do not want any fame or recognition from Wikipedia by using unethical purposes for creating a page about Berozgaar Professors. As I had declared, Berozgaar Professors is in my Conflict of Interest, but I one hundred percent tend to comply with the terms of Wikipedia, and so I will not indulge in anything for my own benefit and will be totally neutral. Throughout all these processes, I learned a lot about Wikipedia, and my respect for the admins for their quick actions on any decision and judgment has skyrocketed. No one here is right or wrong, we all did what was necessary on our part, and I respect each and every one of the admins who participated in this matter.
  Excuse me when I say this, but I'm only a 14 year old boy lighted by the vastness of all the things that are deep within Wikipedia. I got to know how to raise concerns, how to engage, and most importantly, how to improve. I'm pretty young so I think there is so much more for me to learn not just about Wikipedia, but about life in general as well. Furthermore, if I'm not wrong, my article was lacking notable sources and needed at least two for proper reference, right Marshall? I'm in talks with an international Magazine and other entities which are interested in my work. So I think it's just a matter of time before I'll make Berozgaar Professors up and fine again. (I can recreate the page as stated in "If an article was deleted because the subject was not notable, but since that time many more independent reliable sources discussing them have been found or published, you can re-create the article if you include these new additional sources.") Until then, please remove the restrictions that are currently imposed on Berozgaar Professors, so that in the future I could make it again with better sources and proper notability.
  
  PS. dear Nomadicghumakkad, the citation that I placed about the U.S copyrights law which you said didn't apply to India was in fact done because BP is an international entity, people from many countries publish their work with BP not just from India. And apparently, that particular citation was placed just after the citation on 'concept of fair use in India'. I purposely added both the citations to cope with the National and International copyright rules on Fair use (depicted as Section 52 of the Copyrights law in India).
  
  Here is my profile if you want to see me :) Enormous Efrit (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Wankhede (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am writing this as instructed by the closing admin Scottywong.

The closing note of the AfD shows improper counting, poor analysis of sources, and misrepresentation of BLP1E.

Counting those !votes that were not struck, it seems that there were 20, including the nominator, who voted for "delete". There were 17 who voted for "keep". This is much different than Scootywong's count of 16 !keep and 24 !delete.

This is after we ignore the obvious vote rigging, done by a person who voted for !delete two times.[1][2]

Though the voting count does not matter, still it seems that there was almost equal support for either choice.

Scottywong's argument that "vast majority of sources in the article focus on the recent event that began in late 2020" was misleading because it would mean that article must not be created about a person who hasn't received coverage before 2020.

My discussion with Scottywong shows that the admin took a misconceived argument, "There were concerns that the Sunday Guardian may not be a reliable source. An editor even pointed out a fairly major error in the reporting within that story (referring to Wankhede as working for the Indian Police Service rather than the Indian Revenue Service)"[3], into account. There was no concern about the reliability of The Sunday Guardian. Other than that, to say that a source becomes unreliable only because it mentioned the subject as "Indian Police Service rather than the Indian Revenue Service" echoes half-baked information. A 2015 article say "led by two additional SP rank officers -Namrata Patil and Sameer Wankhede" and "Samir Wankhede is a 2004 batch IPS officer and was posted at Mumbai Airport before joining the NIA." There was no error when these sources mentioned Wankhede as "IPS" instead of "IRS".

I already notified the admin about this misunderstanding but had no response.[4]

The article also seemed to have improved a lot during the AfD as one comment noted.[5] It is well possible that there wouldn't be that many votes for !delete if the article had been improved earlier.

Finally, the BLP1E couldn't make any sense because of significant coverage outside the arrest of an actor's son, which could be found from reliable sources before this year.[6][7][8] Nobody could prove that the coverage in these reliable sources was insignificant.

Overall, the AfD should have resulted in "keep" or "no consensus". TolWol56 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This was a difficult discussion to close, and I think the closer did a great job evaluating the consensus here. It was closely split, but ultimately not enough to warrant a "no consensus" outcome. ––Formal ^talk 17:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closing admin - I believe I explained my rationale clearly in my closing statement, so I won't rehash it here. While the overall vote count doesn't matter all that much, I'm still perplexed how two different people can come to such different counts. I've done a more exhaustive and careful count of the votes and put them in a table below. It appears I was off by a few votes (probably due to various inconsistencies with how people composed and signed their votes), but there is still about a 12% differential between delete and keep votes (23 delete, 18 keep, 56%-44%). I think that all we can conclude from this is that there was somewhat more support for deleting this article than keeping it, but it certainly wasn't a landslide in either direction. While the strength of individual arguments is ultimately what determines the consensus, I believe that counting votes is also important to understand the overall level of support that each side has. I don't close AfDs by counting votes, and I have frequently closed AfDs in favor of the minority voters. Expand the table below to see my vote count in this AfD:

#	Delete	Keep
1	Venkat TL (nom)	GreaterPonce665
2	Arunudoy	Jehowahyereh
3	Suneye1	Mukt
4	TrendSPLEND	Dr. Abhijeet Safai
5	Equine-man	Hatchens
6	OhNoitsJamie	DMySon
7	122.172.46.29	106.214.126.2
8	TrangaBellam	AltruisticHomoSapien
9	Eevee01	122.169.93.58
10	25_Cents_FC	LearnIndology
11	Nenetarun	Yoonadue
12	183.82.104.213	TolWol56
13	RegentsPark	Dhy.rjw
14	106.206.53.153	Yogesh Khandke
15	Ravensfire	Rsrikanth05
16	LukeEmily	122.161.72.152
17	115.98.59.92	S_Marshall
18	ThisFeelsABitOff	desmay
19	115.97.187.217
20	4meter4
21	Tayi_Arajakate
22	Scope_creep
23	FormalDude

Regarding the rest of the argument, the most convincing argument from the delete voters is that this individual is not notable per WP:BLP1E. The single event that put this individual into the news happened in late 2020. So, it's generally safe to say that any news articles about this event from late 2020 onwards cannot be used to prove that the individual is notable for more than one event. The vast majority of sources in the article and presented within the AfD were from late 2020 or later. I believe I only saw one or two articles from before 2020, and the reliability of those sources was called into question in the AfD, and that question of their reliability was not adequately refuted, in my opinion. The discussion between Tayi_Arajakate and S_Marshall towards the bottom of the AfD is where this is discussed in the most depth.

Either way, as I said in the closing statement, this is admittedly a borderline case, but I felt that there was sufficient consensus to justify deleting the article. I'm curious to see how the rest of the community views this close, and of course, happy to abide by the community's decision. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse He is surely in news a lot now because he had Shahrukh Khan's (popular Indian actor) son after a raid at an alleged drug party. The son got bail though. He has been in news in past as well because of his attempts to get bollywood celebrities caught with drugs cases. But, fundamentally, it's a government servant doing his job. He is only getting all this publicity because he is dealing with celebrities and people love to read gossip. And that's all that is. If this was a person doing his job with regular criminals, there won't be any news. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC First, I want to complement the closer on the close. While I disagree with it, I think it is well explained and as detailed and as clear as one could hope. The above additional comments are delivered in a professional and clear way. So that's great. The problem I have is that the discussion didn't really conclude that BLP1E applied. There were a lot of bad !votes ("person doing his job" isn't a reason to delete and the keep side had a number that were equally bad). But given the numbers, to find for a delete outcome, there has to be a fairly strong case made. And BPL1E doesn't apply just because the person has only been in the news for a year or so. In fact I'd really like to know what the closer thinks the "one event" is. "Man doing his job?". If that's an "event" we need to remove nearly every sports figure. Sorry, the !vote is too close and the arguments for deletion too far off to find a delete outcome here. It certainly isn't a keep, but I'd say it's as classic an NC outcome as we could hope to see. Hobit (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the closer did as good a job as possible in that mess of an AfD and it's not a closer's job to address new arguments which should have been brought up during the discussion. There is obviously a concern about The Sunday Guardian's reliability, to claim otherwise is to claim that no one questioned its reliability.

I suppose I'll address the new arguement; the 2015 article is from The Times of India (RSP entry), where there is community consensus that it is not a generally reliable source and it is making the same mistake as The Sunday Guardian. Pretty much every source that has covered him describes him as an IRS official and not the IPS, for instance see (The Indian Express (RSP entry), The Hindu (RSP entry), Livemint, etc) or even TOI's own recent coverage ([9], [10], etc). I can only assume that the staff at TOI back then thought that being in an investigative agency must mean police and printed that, the article itself provides him with a brief passing mention. If one trawls through other low quality sources, one can probably find the same mistake repeated.

I also don't get Hobit's contestation that there was no strong case made for BLP1E. Yes, if a sports figure had received coverage for solely participating in say a single major tournament, their article would be deleted under BLP1E. If there were no SNGs for them but there are, while there is no similar SNGs for government employees doing their job. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There is no sense pointing out whether he was IPS or IRS. Many civil service officers in India give upsc again after qualifying, to shift from one service to another. This is the reason SGL article says IPS and a later India Today article by the same author "Kiran Tare" 7 yrs later says IRS. What is of concern though is lack of reliability and verification. Indian news sources often make dubious and sensational claims. For eg, both of Kiran Tare's article I mentioned above says "Wankhede's action added a revenue of Rs 87 cr in the Union government's exchequer last year". Then this Aajtak article says "under the leadership of Sameer Wankhede, a drug and drugs racket worth about Rs 17,000 crore was exposed" (translated). You'd see that all sources covering him use sensational and dubious claims. State and federal govt departments in India never make such off-hand remarks and glorify their officers in this way because all their officers are expected to maintain a low profile without seeking media attention. I looked at many articles covering him prior to the Cruise ship drug case, and all of them are either routine coverage or unreliable. Best course now that the article is deleted is to wait for sigcov for an evidence of WP:SUSTAINED and maybe create an article later. - hako9 (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  hako9, I'd point out one thing in those two articles though. While it's possible to give UPSC again after qualifying for the first time, it's not possible to enter two services in the same year to become both a 2004 batch IRS official (specified in the India Today article) and a 2004 batch IPS officer (specified in the SG article). I don't disagree that many of their claims are dubious and sensationalist but this one was explicitly refutable so I brought it up. The recent sources make no mention of him every being in the IPS, and they are likely not going to get it wrong now that one of the allegations is that he entered the services by forging documents. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who participated in that debate, my position is that BLP1E didn't apply because in the post-2019 coverage there were two subjects covered (the drug matter and the scheduled caste matter), and two news sources exist which pre-date either of those incidents. I can make sense of the claim that this is an unremarkable person but I think that if these things had happened in London or New York, Wikipedia would consider them remarkable enough to have an article about him. Indian sources are a very difficult problem though because the quality is often incredibly low.—S Marshall T/C 09:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the close was within the closer's discretion. --Enos733 (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The close hinges on an idea that BLP1E applies, but there was distinctly no consensus around it's applicability. It's undeniable that there's a relatively long period of coverage. Still, the argument that BLP1E applies is well-formed: It says that if the single "main" event which makes the subject notable was subtracted, the remaining coverage would not have made the subject notable, so this would indeed be a "person notable for one event", and not notable for other events in relation to which they were also covered -- this was referred to as routine coverage by participants. The argument that BLP1E does apply is also well-formed: it says that even if the main event had been subtracted, the remaining coverage could have actually made the subject notable, or nearly notable, but in tandem with the main event, certainly notable. This is a good rebuttal. Closer refers to a thread between Tayi Arajakate and S Marshall as offering the most depth in this regard, but this thread is so clearly unresolved. In the end, most participants seem to accept BLP1E as the controlling policy, and can't agree on the outcome. So there was no consensus. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC I also participated on the AFD. My opinion is just what like Alalch Emis described. BLP1E was probably the only reason behind the deletion and there is still no consensus that it really applied due to significant coverage predating the arrest of the actor's son. desmay (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One way to look at it would be to see if subject qualifies WP:THREE while excluding the coverage for Aryan Khan case. I searched for coverages before August [11] and most of the coverage are his statements on his high profile cases. There is no significant coverage on who he is and what his journey has been, except [12]. If we find two more like this, we can argue it's not WP:1E. However, this India today article has label India Today Insight. I am unaware what it would indicate in terms of reliability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  One need not be notable absent 1E coverage to merit an article, but one has to have at least one RS beyond all the 1E-associated RS, so a single additional good source prior to the 1E coverage would moot BLP1E--we don't need multiple Non-1E RS, just multiple RS, not all of which can be 1E. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So now we're in an intriguing situation where the "endorse" side asserts that Mr Wankede is only notable for one event. I think the question the "endorse" side need to answer is which is the one event?

• Context: Shah Rukh Khan is one of Bollywood's more popular and successful actors. His son is Aryan Khan, age 23. On 2nd October this year, officers of the Indian Narcotics Bureau arrested Aryan Khan aboard a cruise ship travelling from Mumbai to Goa on charges of violating an Act that concerns the possession, consumption and sale of controlled substances. Aryan Khan then appeared before a court that deals with cases involving unlawful narcotics. This created an intense media circus; so intense, in fact, that the BBC have produced an article about the intensity of the media coverage here. I find this so remarkable that I'll stop and say it again. The media coverage of this event is itself generating media coverage.

• Sameer Wankhede is the head of the Indian Narcotics Bureau and the lead investigating officer into the alleged crime.

• It's common ground between both sides that given the gossipyness and general unreliability of the Indian Media, and the fact that Aryan Khan has not been convicted of anything, we have to be incredibly careful what we write.

• It's also common ground that , of this problematic bunch of sources, the Indian Express is the most reliable. Let's examine the Indian Express coverage in some detail.

• In this article, the Indian Express sets out Wankhede's rather central role in the allegations against Shah Rukh Khan and his son. If the one event is Aryan Khan's arrest for drug trafficking, which took place in October 2021, why does this article devote so much time to unrelated incidents that took place in 2011?

• In this article, the Indian Express sets out allegations that Wankhede was ineligible for his position owing to the fact that he didn't rightly belong to the correct scheduled caste. It does admittedly mention Aryan Khan briefly in the first paragraph. The background is Aryan Khan's arrest for drug trafficking, but that is not the subject of the article.

• In this article, the Indian Express describes additional, separate allegations against Wankhede and his department. Again, it does admittedly mention Aryan Khan briefly. The background is Aryan Khan's arrest, but that is not the subject of the article.

• And to make the matter even more complex, during the AfD I discussed with Tayi Arajakate (whom I find a very pleasant and reasonable interlocutor, by the way, and I differ from him only in the most collegial and cordial manner possible) two news sources from 2013 which pre-date the arrest. Tayi Arajakate is of the view that these sources are unreliable. I questioned whether they are really unreliable for the claims they make; but tragically I'm unable to link them here because the article has been deleted and I omitted to link them during the AfD.

• I respectfully put it to you all that the idea that all of this is about Aryan Khan's arrest on 2nd October is simply untenable.—S Marshall T/C 11:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• [13]- why does this article devote so much time to unrelated incidents that took place in 2011? because media wants to dig his history for gossip.

[14] - After SRK's son was arrested, Nawab Malik made public comments and allegations about Wankhede. It is not disputed that Cruise ship drug case was the event that led to this feud.

[15] - Well, I'd say just look at the heading and sub-heading. It is undeniably all connected to that single event. I looked at many stories that covered him before this case. Reproducing my comment even though I deleted it from Afd earlier diff

So what exactly do we have about him before the Cruise ship case? In my view, nothing of encyclopedic value, a lot of tabloid stuff though. Pre 1event coverage -- A customs officer fining bollywood celebs for evading airport searches, getting death threats (incredibly common for civil servants in India), dubious claims of benefitting the drug enforcement department due to his actions etc. I wouldn't even be able to construct a single line of material on him without violating WP:NOTNEWS. I do agree with you that the media circus ensuing from the cruise ship drug case is, as you say, remarkable. I'd still be against overturning. I'd instead favour creating an article on the event itself or wait for significant coverage on Wankhede to recreate it. - hako9 (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem here is that very expansive use of "undeniably all connected to that one event". I mean, if you'll forgive my reasoning by analogy, everything we say about Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is "undeniably all connected" to the day when she was born into the Royal Family. Everything we say about Lee Harvey Oswald is "undeniably all connected" to the day he shot John F. Kennedy. The reason why we don't say these people are notable only for one event is because there are sources that cover other aspects of their lives.

You also invoke WP:NOTNEWS, so let's give that a detailed analysis. The first limb of NOTNEWS clearly doesn't apply -- this is not original reporting, it's a source-based article. The second limb concerns "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities", but we've agreed that, in your own words as well as mine, this is a remarkable media circus. It's not routine. The third limb says "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...." and in this situation, I think that wording is incredibly vague and hard to apply. I would say that the news coverage goes a considerable way beyond that single event, and I would point to what are, by Indian standards, very long, detailed articles about background and history. I can see how you might try to make a case that it's all in the "context" of the arrest but I do think that's quite a stretch. The fourth limb of NOTNEWS certainly doesn't apply because Wankhede isn't a celebrity and neither is Khan's son (who doesn't even have his own Wikipedia article). And even if he was, this is hardly at the level of the examples that fourth limb gives about individual goals scored.

And that's why I genuinely think you have to stretch BLP1E and NOTNEWS very far out of shape before you can apply them here.—S Marshall T/C 13:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to dismiss the article with WP:NOTNEWS. I only invoked it for dismissing particular news items that I mentioned in my collapsed table. I would say that the news coverage goes a considerable way beyond that single event. I do concede here that it apparently does seem like stretching the limits of BLP1E. But here is what I thought when I looked at that long afd. What exactly would I or any other editor write in the article, if creating from scratch. I wouldn't really put in any single item pre-cruise ship event for the reasons I stated. And if the post event coverage is all that is, then in what way would it be an article on Wankhede and not about the event. - hako9 (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a novel argument that wasn't made in the AfD. If DRV re-lists this, then we might have the chance to give it proper scrutiny. Thanks for agreeing that this decision seems like stretching the limits of BLP1E.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am digressing a bit here but I would like to ask. Assuming notability is established and blp1e doesn't stand, is there anything in the post Oct 21 coverage (incl caste controversy), that you'd be comfortable with adding into the article about the subject, that wouldn't violate WP:BLPCRIME, WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:NOTNEWS and other content guidelines? My contention, to reiterate, is that if the allowable content is so thin (pre and post Oct 21), is a standalone article justified? - hako9 (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little leery of that framing. My position is that by Wikipedian convention, it's not for me to "justify" the addition of sourced content -- I think the burden is in fact on others to "justify" removing it. But OK, let me take the question at face value and see where it takes me.

Using only the Indian Express sources, with twenty minutes' work I get:

Sameer Dawood Wankhede is an Indian public official currently working as the Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau in Mumbai . His father, Dnyaeshwar Kachru Wankhede, was a police officer. His mother's name was Zaheeda Begum. He was born into a scheduled caste. In December 2006, he married Shabana Zaheer Qureshi in a Muslim ceremony. In 2007 he cleared the Indian Civil Services Examination and in 2008, he joined the Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Indirect Taxes). He worked as a customs officer at Mumbai International Airport and in the Service Tax department, rising through the ranks to his current position. In August 2021, jointly with his team he was awarded the Home Minister's medal for excellence in investigation. Although he has handled many cases (more than 90 in 2021), he has attracted a great deal of media attention for his role in the arrest of Shah Rukh Khan's son on 2nd October 2021.

It's appropriate for us to carry this content. The media circus makes this a plausible search term. And in this encyclopaedia where people are "notable" for having played professional-level cricket for 12 minutes in 1973, Wankhede is way, way over the bar.—S Marshall T/C 12:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.... And the academy awards for the best Straw man goes to S Marshall. Venkat TL (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL: that was an excellent counter by S Marshall, imv. There's no need for such irksome remarks. - hako9 (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imv, the straw man in the last line is worth the appreciation. Venkat TL (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you used the above text to create an article and left out the final sentence, it could arguably be speedy deleted under A7. Your proposed text seems to highlight the fact that he is only notable for the single event described in the last sentence. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly right, and earlier in this discussion I've explicitly agreed that the arrest is the context of the sources even when it isn't the subject of the sources. But that doesn't mean BLP1E applies. If you look, there are actually three limbs to WP:BLP1E and all three of them need to be satisfied to justify a deletion. The others are: (2) if the person is a low-profile individual, and (3) if the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. If I squint at this case in exactly the right light while turning my head sidewise, I could maybe see an arguable case that Wankhede is low-profile, but I can't see any way it fits limb #3.—S Marshall T/C 00:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Striked my endorse. A stub length article is quite possible here. Content issues are surmountable. WP:ATD-E. I am still split on whether we should stretch blp1e, as S Marshall, puts it. I really can't make up my mind, tbh. - hako9 (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I had nominated the article. The close was within the closer's discretion. AfD closers are expected to look at strength of argument, not just vote count (WP:DGFA). It is unfortunate to see the dispute created by the OP over the head counts. Here the Keep comments were largely based in passing tabloid type coverage as WP:GNG, when it is not. Several Keep !voters claimed the subject met the notability guidelines but didn't provide any supporting reasoning or evidence. It was reasonable for the closer to down-weight these comments because of this. The closer has provided a detailed closing summary that I feel perfectly explains the summary of the discussion. Although this is not the place to rehash the arguments for or against the article, lot of time and words are spent above on this. I have already elaborated my views in the AfD discussion, so I will not repeat them. Just wanted to add, that until someone gets convicted, (which is highly unlikely IMHO) there is no way to write an objective article on the subject, without violating the WP:BLPCRIME of the subject or his victims. After culling stuff to conform to WP:BLP there is nothing special in the article that makes the subject deserve an article. There are some tabloid type articles run in Indian media about his watches and shoes too. None of that can be added here or be used to claim notability. If this is overturned or the article restore, it will open floodgates of new articles for barber, security guards, etc of filmstars and filmstars sons. Every cop, incometax officer, municipal officers dealing with the film stars and getting tabloid coverage will claim their own article. That Indian media has lost its mind, is not enough reason for Wikipedia to do the same. After all is said, Wikipedia standards for WP:ANYBIO should be honoured. Venkat TL (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see why you think the discussion above is re-litigating the AfD. The closing rationale was: While this is a borderline case, I believe there is sufficient consensus to delete the article primarily due to WP:BLP1E. At issue in this DRV is the question of whether Scottywong was right that BLP1E is the determining factor. Whether he was right depends on whether BLP1E can be stretched to fit the sources. It's not possible to discuss this without a detailed consideration of what the sources say, hence the very detailed discussion between Hako9 and myself.
    You say, there is no way to write an objective article on the subject, and I invite you review the stub I literally just wrote in the discussion above that in no way violates BLPCRIME.
    On the rest of what you wrote, I dispute and join issue with you in every respect.—S Marshall T/C 14:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your efforts. IMHO, your proposed stub is still unfit for Wikipedia. No amount of "wordsmith"ing will make up for the lack of internationally recognizable achievements from Wankhede. Venkat TL (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a valid proof of concept: some encyclopedic content can be sourced to that article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Venkat TL: You seem to be claiming that having "internationally recognizable achievements" is the bar requirement for inclusion? Could you explain why you think that? Is there some policy or guideline that hints at such a thing? Hobit (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        Please refer to WP:ANYBIO for the requirements for inclusion, and my comments on AfD page for my views. I am not going to rehash the arguments as WP:DRV is not the place for such discussion. Venkat TL (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        • The problem is you are proposing a standard that isn't in line with our guidelines or policies. AfD votes based on standards that aren't in line with our guidelines are a problem for DRV. 17:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
          • I am not "proposing" any standards. Just reminding you to refer to the existing ones. If you believe that arresting/investing a film actor's son makes a guy notable for Wikipedia. Well then. Good for you. Anyway please read WP:DRVPURPOSE and do not use this page for side discussions. --Venkat TL (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • You indicated that not having "internationally recognizable achievements" is a reason to not include this. The actual standards include WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:BLP1E. What matters here is coverage not why that coverage exists. And discussing what the standards that should be used (and were used in the discussion) is very much a matter for DRV. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

              Yet, this person passes none of those actual standards to get a page. You and a few others keep claiming coverage exists, without admitting that the coverage that we have here is the coverage of the event of arrest of a film actor's son, it is expected that the characters will also get included in it. You along with others continue to misinterpret the event coverage as the coverage for the subject. The articles prior to 2020 are tabloid type. Venkat TL (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

              • @Venkat TL: the claim that WP:N isn't met is just plain false. It's clear that we have multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject. You've acknowledged that. I feel like you don't understand our inclusion guidelines. It doesn't matter *why* the coverage exists for meeting WP:N, just that it does. WP:BLP1E cares about the why, not WP:N. Hobit (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • But ANYBIO is not the requirements for inclusion. WP:BIO is a key guideline and I've noticed an occasional tendency to misunderstand it or to quote only one part of it out of context. Let's refresh our memories on what it actually says.
        WP:BIO begins by giving the general rule: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
        WP:BIO then goes on to list "additional criteria", and it says about these additional critera: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. WP:ANYBIO is one of these additional criteria.
        It follows that WP:ANYBIO is not a requirement for inclusion. What our guideline actually says is that WP:BASIC is the requirement for inclusion and someone who passes WP:ANYBIO is likely to pass WP:BASIC.
        It's common ground among all the parties that Mr Wankhede has been discussed in many unreliable sources. He's also been the subject of several articles in the Indian Express, which our reliable sources people have evaluated as a reliable source. He's also been the subject of articles in a number of news media whose reliability we have not yet considered. I can follow the case that this is a BLP1E, even if I disagree with it, but I don't think the case that Wankhede fails WP:BIO is even remotely tenable.—S Marshall T/C 14:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC. I had made enough improvements to the article but I find it agreeable now that the article should be strictly stub per S Marshall and Hako99. Mukt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: Good work from the closer who evaluated the consensus. Sameer came in the news lately due to the WP:SENSATIONAL drug case which involved a very famous celebrity's son. Apart from a few trivial mentions before this incident, there is no coverage and so it still is BLP1E.IMO, a government worker doing his job is definitely not notable for an article unless he has done something significant and received coverage for his role in it. The subject wouldn't have been in the news if the case did not involve one of the most popular celebrity's son in the country. - SUN EYE 1 10:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC WP:BLP1E needs to meet strict scrutiny, which it does not here, either in the AfD or the overall sourcing demonstrated above in this DRV. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC If a single event is sensational enough, if pass BLP1E. What makes things sensational? The media, and it's certainly the media that has done so here, far out of the intrinsic importance of the case. In many similar instance I've argued for delete, on the basis of NOT TABLOID, and that no amount of tabloid coverage was worth bothering about for an encyclopedia . I see from the arguments above that this may not always be true--enough movie-star's-son type coverage can in exceptional cases do it. What has convinced me is SMarshall's demonstration that The media coverage of this event is itself generating media coverage. That makesi t significant enough that someone might reasonably come here looking for information (and I suggest the article be rewritten to emphasise that aspect, and just possibly renamed, Arrest of Aryan Khan. (BLP is still involved, of course, no matter how we title it.

additionally I would at least because of the entirely improper method that the closer used, which was vote counting--vote counting to such an extent that they illustrate the details of it here in a table. The only acceptable uses of such a count is to demonstrate that there is not complete agreement. What haas to be considered is the arguments, not the votes, and the key disagreement as analyzed above is the interpretation of BLP1E. I think there should be consensus in S Marshall's view of that, but it seems that there isn't, and so this becomes nonconsensus (I don't see the point of actually relisting, because I think this discussion� has made matters as clear as they're ever going to be). DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

vote counting to such an extent that they illustrate the details of it here in a table. Hmm, Guess who bought that issue up in this drv. Let's be fair here ok. The closer did a good job, considering the rationale and arguments that voters presented there. Shitty evidences presented in a court will lead to faulty judgements. It's not the closer's job to go above and beyond what was presented to him in that discussion. It was always a close call no matter how one looks at it. - hako9 (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• While I agree with the rest, the charge of vote counting against the closer I'd say is mistaken. First of all, any close *should* count !votes. That's part of consensus evaluation. It isn't *just* a vote, but when weighting different views, numbers do play a role. Secondly, the table in question was only generated because there was a disagreement in !vote count. But otherwise, yes, there is plenty of coverage, and even coverage of the coverage. Maybe this should be an event article, but that wasn't proposed and this isn't AfD. Hobit (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that we shouldn't give Scotty a hard time over that close. DRV shouldn't be a hostile environment for closers; and that was a relatively good one by DRV standards (we see a lot of poor closes because of what we do here).—S Marshall T/C 10:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]