Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhruv Rathee


 * 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. Previously closed as "delete", now reclosed as "no consensus" following a discussion on my talk page.  Sandstein  06:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Dhruv Rathee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage, the only thing he's "known" for is his borderline racist remarks which is WP:BLP1E. There is no sustained coverage and the bulk of the sources are not independent (q&as, interviews, etc...) Praxidicae (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 50-50  ❯❯❯  S A H A   16:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a clear one event case. He is not notable outside his remarks that some did not like, and thus we do not have full fledged notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E argument unfortunately doesn't hold. He was already popular (as far as these so-called "youtubers" and "political commentators" go), prior to his BLM infamy. If the notability criteria is passed for Steven Crowder and other like youtubers, it likely passes for him too. -  Harsh  19:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:BLP1E and above ~ Amkgp 💬  15:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes GNG. Sources like- New Indian Express, DW , Scroll , Mid Day satisfy the conditions of:
 * 1) Multiple secondary sources
 * 2) Reliable sources
 * 3) Independent of the subject
 * 4) In-depth information
 * Do the above 'keep' argument stands? I don't think so. Sources like Mid-day, Scroll are well known for frequent offender of publishing churnalism. ~ Amkgp  💬  06:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep I was on the fence about Rathee's notability during article creation but thought that the very in-depth Scroll article combined with a few other news articles (Indian Express, in particular) constitute sufficient coverage. His videos and comments are frequently cited in the national political sphere. I'll try to find some more sources. M4DU7 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed weak keep to keep based on NitinMlk's detailed analysis below. M4DU7 (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG as mentioned. Aside from trivial coverage in like-minded sources, there is not much coming from independent sources. Dhawangupta (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete He fails WP:GNG in the sense that the significant coverage is not provided to him by the sources which are reliable, independent from this subject. Free Press Journal, Scroll.in, etc. are just not reliable for notability. The only source from Indian Express is not significant because it talks about a variety of subjects not just this person - doesn't mean that any random person mentioned by the Indian Express deserves their own Wikipedia article TheodoreIndiana (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – It seems articles like that of Deutsche Welle and The Indian Express, combined with the non-trivial coverage that he regularly gets in the mainstream media , make him pass WP:BASIC. He is certainly not a case of WP:BLP1E, as he has been regularly in the news since 2018, the year in which BBC Hindi interviewed him: . The recent interview by The New Indian Express  also indicates his growing popularity. Here are a couple of other examples of non-trivial coverage: Forbes India  & The Week.


 * He is basically a critic of the present PM/government of India, i.e. Narendra Modi and the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). I guess 2018 was the year when he created his first widely-reported "controversy" while trying to expose the alleged propaganda machine of BJP through a couple of YouTube videos. As those videos are in Hindi, they were reported by the mainstream Hindi newspapers like Jansatta (published by the Indian Express Limited): . And a retweet of those videos resulted in a defamation case against  Arvind Kejriwal (the Chief Minister of Delhi):, , , etc. I guess one of his other "controversies" resulted in a 30-day block by Facebook, although Facebook reversed its decision within a few hours: , , , , etc. There are some other such incidents listed in the BLP. Anyway, he has been getting presistent coverage in the mainstream news media for the last couple of years.


 * PS: The subject has been a persistent target of BJP supporters and Hindu nationalists, and has received so much online trolling, threats, etc. that he neither discloses his address nor details of his family members. So the WP:PPOV !votes should be judged accordingly. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC) added a couple of links - NitinMlk (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The above clap-trap about him being a victim, "a target", for justifying a standalone article is irrelevant and unconvincing. I don't think if he even meets WP:BLP1E because the coverage was temporary and the event itself wasn't notable. There are many critics and haters of BJP and BLM, but WP:GNG has to be met. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You not only labelled my policy-based comment as "clap-trap" but also completely misrepresented it. This is not an acceptable behaviour. In fact, this is why I mentioned "WP:PPOV !votes" in my previous comment. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep A cursory look at the sources suggests ongoing regular and non trivial coverage of the subject. I think the notability in this case is very much reinforced by the press's attitude. If he really didn't matter would people get so angry that they write entire articles criticising him on a regular basis. Per policy, WP:BLP1E does not apply the individual has a major YouTube following so can't be characterised as low profile. WP:BLP1E can only be applied to low profile individuals. PainProf (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E can only be applied to low profile individuals. He is a low profile individual, which is why there is no actual coverage of him aside from what I pointed out. Being disliked by notable people does not make one notable. Praxidicae (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is the other way around: all of his "actual" coverage is outside of the last month's remarks pointed out by you. In fact, those remarks were not even covered by the mainstream media. I guess they were mainly covered in a couple of non-mainstream news sites and an opinion piece of SheThePeople.TV, a site which claims to be a digital storytelling for women, dedicated to passionately championing and promoting their journeys. And he is anything but a low profile individual. BTW, in case of BLPs, one should be cautious about accusing anyone of borderline racist remarks unless they can back it up with a reliable source – see WP:BLPREMOVE. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources are good enough to pass WP:GNG. He is relevant enough to have 3.2 million YouTube subscribers and for people to write about him. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Number of YouTube subscribers has never been a metric to determine notability of a person in Wikipedia. As it can be manipulated and done by numerous ways to increase or decrease views ~ Amkgp  💬  05:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ~ Amkgp, I didn't say it was. But a large social media following is indicative of someone with a large level of interest in them. As is a large number of articles talking about someones opinions. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think so. It can be achieved with by hiring a good PR team and usage of bots etc. Its Wikipedia notability that determines the articles eligibility to stay. ~ Amkgp  💬  02:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I am one of his subscriber and appreciate some his work. But, he doesn't have significant coverage in media. Neurofreak (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per WP:EXIST and WP:ARBITRARY, having thousands or hundreds of subs on YouTube or followers on Instagram or the likes does not prove one's notability. Keep that in mind. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: With sources indicated by NitinMlk along with his analysis, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: I just checked about him, he does have enough wp:sigcov to pass wp:rs.Stonertone (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The sourcing just isn't there for him to be notable enough for an article. SheThePeople TV is questionable and the coverage of him in otherwise usable sources is trivial and not in-depth enough. Also, Vlogers tend to say controversial things just for media attention. So, IMO you can't separate what's actually notable about the guy because it's genuinely notable from something that receives news coverage because he intentionally said something he knew would receive news coverage to increase his subscriber count. You can't create your own notability in that way. It has to be for something actually notable and it can't be trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you actually bothered to read sources cited in this discussion then you would know that all relevant aspects about his life as well as nature/motivation/impact of his YouTube videos are already covered independently & non-trivially in reliable sources. And no one even cited SheThePeople to assert his notability. Also, it is quite clear from the sources that he is notable for his political commentary as well as for exposing fake news, which is prevalent in Indian media. In fact, BBC interviewed him in that regard in 2018 and later invited him to cover 2019 elections in India . Similarly, NDTV also interviewed him in that regard in 2018 ( (see /)) and he covered Indian elections for them in the next year, e.g., , , , , etc. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * First, last time I checked judging notability is based on whatever new sources are provided in the AfD and the ones currently in the article. One of which happens to be from SheThePeople. I didn't say anyone brought it up, because someone bringing up a source or not is completely irrelevant if the source is in the article. We don't just ignore them because there's an AfD discussion. So, I'm not sure what your going off about, but it's totally un-called for. Second him being interviewed about stuff, no matter what news outlet did the interview, is completely irrelevant to notability because interviews are considered primary sources, and therefore don't work toward it. Thanks for going on me for nothing though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just responded to the points made by you, rather than going off on you. And I gave links of his interviews/works in the context of your comment. Major national news channels like BBC and NDTV don't interview someone just because he "intentionally said something he knew would receive news coverage", let alone giving them the responsibility of election coverage, as that would put their own reputation in jeopardy. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BBC (https://www.bbc.com/hindi/india-47730613) here is one of the major Reliable sources about Rathee, can you explain me how it is supposed to be non notable after publications like BBC and The Wire is covering him?, Although I have added few more References which you can check in the article like (https://www.firstpost.com/politics/watch-popular-youtuber-breaks-down-delhi-political-standoff-between-arvind-kejriwal-and-l-g-anil-baijal-4540331.html) First Post.   Dtt1 Talk  17:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Read my first comment of this AfD. There are multiple quality sources which cover his life, career, views, YouTube channel/videos, etc. independently and non-trivially. And there is a persistent coverage about him, which I believe is enough to meet WP:BASIC. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Rathee have publications like BBC and The Wire it must not be deleted as passing RS. Dtt1 Talk  17:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment BLP1E this applies to a number of comments. Whilst subscriber count can't be used to show notability. BLP1E refers to low profile as opposed to notability. So who is low profile for this policy? An individual who has not sort media coverage. "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Therefore, this argument does not apply to this discussion. I don't think it's possible to make the argument he has not sought out media coverage. I stand by my previous comment. From a large number of subscribers it can be inferred the subject has sought coverage and is not low profile. PainProf (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject is not notable for anything. The sources who have provided him coverage are either unreliable or they have only covered interview with the person. Imagine creating articles only based on interviews and partisan sources? Almost anyone can have article then. Ankit 07:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitkr1992 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete for failing GNG as his youtubing and social media posts are not "publications". Nobody fact checks them nor are they subject to editorial oversight. A regretted tweet would be a one event incident if it rose to such a level that there was widespread coverage. Blue Riband► 03:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete agreed with Ankitkr1992. Zoglophie (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.