Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INX Media case

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

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

Routine scandal coverage with a risk for negative BLP.

WP:NCRIME. -- Dlohcierekim 18:07, 21 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]
Keep - Changing my !vote as the content has significantly improved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 27 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,—
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:PROPAGANDA. --DBigXray 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
]
@
talk) 11:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Please see
WhatabouteryDBigXray 11:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Rsrikanth05, When an article is being used as an
WP:GNG cannot be used to justify attackpages. Almost every attackpage ever created on wikipedia contains newspaper coverages and yet they are deleted. --DBigXray 11:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 11:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
want to talk? 13:33, 22 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.-- Dlohcierekim 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. WBGconverse 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. Dee03 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.