Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahara India Pariwar investor fraud case


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. There is a very credible claim that this is a notable legal proceeding, whatever further development the article may need. At a minimum, it is uncontroverted that it is supported by reliable sources and relevant to a notable topic, making this at most a candidate for merger and not for deletion per WP:ATD. The rampant (and barely coherent) WP:SOCKpuppetry and/or WP:MEATpuppetry does not sway that determination, and their ironic appeals to "Wikipedia policy" or the credibility of Wikipedia as an information source should provoke some self-reflection as to how attempts to votestack a discussion threaten those principles. I suggest interested editors keep a close watch on this and the parent company articles. postdlf (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sahara India Pariwar investor fraud case

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is completely promotional page. Somebody is violating Wikipedia policy. When already a Sahara India Pariwar page is existing then whats the use of creating an another page with the same name. Also, if we check out the media links that have been used as a reference to this page clearly states that the issue is with subrata roy or the other companies of sahara group. Then why sahara india pariwar name has been involved. Also, it seems to be like a news page rather than wiki page. Not only this if a new user will read this page then he/she will get confuse for sure. It is not at all a useful article rather it seems to be like a news page. So, kindly remove it. Qwerty0963 (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 3.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 12:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (pronounce)  @ 21:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (warn)  @ 21:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * A case decided by the Supreme Court of India will be notable both by reason of satisfying criteria 1 (because it is the highest court) of, and also by reason of satisfying criteria 2 (because, by the Constitution, its decisions are binding: ) of, WP:CASES. James500 (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with . As per Wikipedia's notability criteria for cases that has been brought under the highest court in a legal jurisdiction is considered to be notable. — CutestPenguinHangout 12:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Disagree with As its an ongoing case and no judgement has been passed yet against Sahara India Pariwar. Also, I would like to clear here that wikipedia is not a newspaper/article/blog so until this issue comes to an end we cannot make any kind of judgement by our own this is against constituion. Why we post content on Wikipedia and why people serve it for any information because its a most reliable source on internet. And hence until the final judgement comes from the court side we cannot create any kind of page. There are millions of legal issues brought under many highest court's but not all have been highlighted on Wikipedia although all were more important or major than this sahara india pariwar investor fraud case. We use wiki pages to learn something but here this page includes very limited information about this issue that is again against constitution. This page is giving wrong message/information to people. Yes, this page is talking about facts but incomplete facts. So, currently deletion of this page is more important. There are a lot of mysteries in this case and hence currently there is no use of this page. But, yes once this issue comes to an end then according to it the page can be created but not now. Although already there is an existing page of Sahara India Pariwar and for a reference we can write over there about this issue but creating a new page that is not at all notable is of no use at all. The issue is still pending in court and daily some new stories are appearing in this case. Deletion is important for this case.ramesh985 (talk)(UTC) — Ramesh985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Promotional plus confusing Page and doesn't meet Wikipedia Policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giriban (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)  — Giriban (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Delete  - Even if we went by WP:CASES, which is a failed proposal, this is not a case for which the highest court has rendered an opinion (WP:TOOSOON). As of now it's mainly an WP:UNDUE news story about one party failing to show. The name "Sahara India Pariwar investor fraud case" returns almost entirely Wikipedia-derived ghits. Also problems with various aspects of WP:NOT. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Struck my !vote until we can figure out what's going on here. The nominator and both delete !votes are SPAs who have only edited this AfD and one other Indian real estate company (one of which I've nominated for deletion as failing CORPDEPTH and gross promotional content). --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 20:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Failed proposal" is not a particularly compelling argument. NJOURNALS is also a failed proposal, but it is constantly cited at AfD and used as a grounds for keeping articles with almost no opposition. I think there is a rough consensus in favour of criteria 2 of CASES. IIRC, most of the opposition was directed at criteria 1, because it was felt the expression "highest court" was ambiguous and capable of referring to an intermediate appellate court from which there is no appeal in respect of a particular type of cause, which is not what was intended by the author of the guideline. In any event, the supreme court isn't an intermediate appellate court. It really is the highest court. Much of the opposition wasn't even directed at CASES: It was directed at COURTS or JUDGES (often whilst supporting CASES), or the fact that NLAW only covered a narrow part of its subject, saying nothing about any legal topic other than courts, judges and cases (again often whilst supporting CASES in of itself). In fact, much of the criticism was that NLAW was so conservative as to be completely redundant to GNG, in that anything that satisfied NLAW was absolutely certain to satisfy GNG anyway. So I think there was precious little opposition to criteria 2 (or the intended effect of criteria 1) and it has indeed been followed in quite a few AfDs, so there is precedent for its deployment. Perhaps this could be regarded as invoking WP:IAR, which is policy. CASES also has the advantage of being common sense, since binding precedents are generally important and tend to receive coverage because they create (retroactive) law. James500 (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If "Sahara India Pariwar investor fraud case" produces few results that is entirely unsuprising because it is clearly not the name of a case (ie it is a description) and it is a very narrow (ie obviously useless) search term. James500 (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but the impression that I get is that this article could actually be about a number of related cases decided by the Supreme Court, each of which satisfies CASES and GNG: Subrata Roy Sahara v Union of India and Sebi v Sahara India Real Estate Corpn Ltd (possibly several decisions on different dates for this last one). James500 (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * DELETE - Issue is still pending in the court. Looks like a newspaper that is promoting the issue. No matter sahara india pariwar or supreme court or sebi are notable but doesn't meet WIKIPEDIA POLICY. Talk about facts instead of promoting SUPREME COURT/SEBI/SAHARA INDIA PARIWAR. Why to create nuisance everywhere when the case is still under process. Wikipedia is not a newspaper but this article seems to be as a newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratipaw34 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)  — Kratipaw34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Redirect it to Sahara India Pariwar Ramesh 12:47 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh985 (talk • contribs)  — Ramesh985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * CORPDEPTH is absolutely irrelevant because a court case is certainly not an organization. The word "case" can be defined as the written memorandum of a dispute. As you are not allowed to !vote twice, please unbold the word "delete" in your comment above. James500 (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The sources for this article are impeccable; I see Yahoo, The Hindu and The Times of India have run detailed articles on this case. Those certainly make the case for notability by themselves. I can see no argument whatsoever to simply delete this content given the strength of coverage presented. Dolescum (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Agree with @Qwerty0963. The page is completely promotional. Yes, reliable sources like Yahoo, The Hindu etc. are used being used over here but why are we not writing it in an existing Wikipedia page "Sahara India Pariwar". Whats the use of creating an another page of it. Although if we go through the sources then the issue is still pending in the court. Wikipedia is not a newspaper that we keep on updating the news in it as it happens. Delete this page and create it once this issue comes to an end. If check its sources then before sahara group was wrong and later it came into media that sebi was wrong. Now, again its being seen in media (that has not been mentioned over here) that subrata roy is wrong. We are here to show an article on Wikipedia so don't make it a newspaper or news channel. This way we are passing incomplete information to the people. There must be a right time to show something on Wikipedia. And this way we are promoting sebi sahara India pariwar without knowing the actual scenario of the case. The page is completely promotional. jolly.smith 111:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Jolly.smith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia may not be a newspaper but it certainly documents notable news items. Take note that the main page has a section on it titled 'In the news'. If the information presented is incorrect, then you can easily correct it yourself to match that given in the sources. If you simply dislike what is presented in the sources..well, tough, wikipedia is not censored.
 * Furthermore, there are numerous precedents for splitting an article into a number of more specific sub articles to keep the sizes manageable, see WP:SIZE.
 * Finally, if you feel that the content should be resident in the main article on Sahara India Pariwar, that is your opinion, but that is an argument to Merge, not Delete. Dolescum (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and if you read this Wikipedia page then it completely looks like a newspaper. Yes supreme court sahara india pariwar are notable but at least let this issue come to an end. Then we can create it show it online. If we check out this page then it looks like as if we are seeing a news channel this is not Wikipedia's policy. Even I don't want this page to be merged with sahara india pariwar as the issue is not with sahara india pariwar its with subrata roy and other companies of sahara group. No matter if we create this page as the issue is very big but there must be a time of showing such things online. Its completely violating Wikipedia's policy and just on one thing that its notable we cannot confuse the other users of wikipedia. Why we create a wikipedia page? There must a usage of it then only we create a page but here whats the usage of incomplete information. And if somebody wants this page to be here then kindly update it accordingly as if we compare this page's information with the current scenario of this issue then a lot of facts will be missing from it. There must be a point of showing anything online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly.smith (talk • contribs) 11:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The articles here aren't static documents and to reiterate, we do document major news items. For example, go take a look at our article on the Charlie Hebdo shooting for an example of an article taking shape as a major news story unfolds. If it's notable, Wikipedia exists to document it.
 * As I said earlier, if you think something is missing from the article and you have trustworthy evidence to demonstrate such, that's what the edit button is for. Dolescum (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Charlie Hebdo Shooting page can be made as this incident is facts based and notable too that has already been done. It has been shown on live CCTV camera too so there is no chance of any decision or confusion in it. And here there is no chance of deniability also. But if we talk about this page then here every next day new twists are appearing. Even the Supreme Court themselves are unable to reach to an end. Sometimes, sebi becomes wrong and sometimes subrata roy. And yes, I can make the changes in it as per the issue's updation on Media but what if later the scenario becomes different. Because here in this case since last 2 years daily the new updates are being made that are totally different from the previous one. Even the Supreme Court is unable to decide that who is wrong either sebi or supreme court. Also, subrata roy is not being imprisoned on the reason that he cheated investors although he has been taken into custody as he was unable to attend the court hearing due to the illness of his 92 years old mother. And if today also he is in jail that is because supreme court has asked him for Rs 10,000 crore for his bail. Then why to make other's confuse by just writing "sahara India pariwar fraud case". Let the issue comes to an end and then we can create the page. Also, again and again I am saying that the issue is not with sahara India pariwar its with subrata roy. The information is wrong over here. Last but not the least I would like to say that lets create this page once the supreme court makes the final judgement. Right now there is no use of keeping this page as a lot of facts are missing in it and still if we keep on updating the upcoming issues in it then at various places we might require to remove/delete many factual things. So, right now its better we delete this page instead of making people confuse all the time. User:jolly.smith 11:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree @jolly.smith strong reason to delete as its not a news site. Don't make this page a newspaper. Sadapuru — Sadapuru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * STRONG DELETE - NEWSPAPER is not allowed at WIKIPEDIA katiejones888 9 January 2015 (UTC) — katiejones888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.