Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Love (2nd nomination)

Add links
From 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 delete. Consensus is clear. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Love

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ankit Love (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)

The subject of the article has no claim to notability.

  • His claim as a musician is "most watched music video of the week on MTV US". This fails WP:MUSICBIO.
  • His claim as a producer/director rests on a 52 second YouTube advertisement with 5 million views and no media coverage and a documentary film that was one of the 224 films played at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival also with no media coverage. This fails WP:DIRECTOR.
  • His claim to notability as an activist revolves around his standing in the London mayoral election. His campaign was an abject failure placing last of 12 candidates with the lowest number of votes ever recorded in such an election. This fails WP:POLITICIAN.
  • He also claims to be the Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir. Aside from the absurdity, lack of verifiability and poor sourcing of this claim, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

The article is well sourced but the coverage is wholly insignificant failing the basic WP:GNG too. Additionally, the article was created and is maintained by an account demonstrating a clear conflict of interest and the previous deletion debate was plagued with sockpuppetry by someone displaying a similar conflict of interest. N4 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 00:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 00:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 00:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and Filmmakers -related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism -related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts -related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History -related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Cyanhat TopYaps has over 600,000 followers on it's facebook page, I would say that would give them some account of reliability. Further this article in Daily News and Analysis a broadsheet newspaper reports Love as "a 32-year-old erstwhile royal." WP:ROYALTY--Int Researcher (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Int Researcher 7+ million people liked the Facebook page for Buzzfeed. Buzzfeed is not always a credible source, and is largely not fact-checked The amount of likes does not make something a credible source: see Argumentum ad populum. Based on cursory research, DNA India is also not a reliable source, but I don't want to make that judgement yet. If any users would like to weigh in on the credibility of DNA India, I encourage them to do so as I don't have any extensive experience weighing the credibility on South-East Asian newspapers other than a major few. Cyanhat (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive arguments and accusations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Comment: Please note that User:Int Researcher is a Single Purpose Account that has only made edits directly pertaining to Ankit Love and his party One Love Party, of which he claims to be leader. There is an ongoing sockpuppetry investigation on this user. This user does not follow policies regarding WP:NPOV and clearly has a Conflict of Interest, appearing to be, or directly affiliated, with Ankit Love, of which this individual keeps trying to downplay by not responding, or acknowledging this matter. Cyanhat (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I have clearly stated on the Ankit Love talk page, I have no association with the subject found in the "Deletion of Security Concern" sub-section. All this finger pointing is a clear indication of a lack of an argument and weakness in logical debate to cover a bias in blatant violation of WP:NPOV possibly on nationalistic conditioning. Would User:Cyanhat please care to reveal their nationality and origin? Is there any link to India or South Asia? As that appears to be the fundamental political basis of bias here.--Int Researcher (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: Your claims that somehow militants from India dispute your illegitimate claim has nothing to do with this. Any administrator is welcome to verify my claims that I am not logging in from South-East Asia. My race, nationality, and origins have nothing to do with this, and the fact that you bring it up, shows that you have no real conceivable defense for your actions on Wikipedia, and how desperate you have become in trying to keep the uncited and false facts within your article unnoticed. If you have no association, why are you engaging in ownership of articles related to Ankit Love and accusing every editor making changes to the articles and removing uncited facts as vandals? You are so defensive of what you write that I dispute your objectivity and adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:COI, and given what has occurred in the previous AfD, I am more than willing to brazenly and openly call you out on it. If you really are unaffiliated with Ankit Love, to what compelling reason is there to creating a single-purpose account writing solely on Ankit Love topics, and to what compelling reason did you create these articles for any other reason than to make Ankit Love a more legitimate figure through sockpuppet promotion? Cyanhat (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Please be aware Cyanhat initiated attacks and accusations in violation of wikipedia's policy to assume good faith, as clearly seen here and on the article's talk page. Once good faith policy has been violated initially in consideration to this article's geopolitical association with the ongoing armed Kashmir conflict it's important to consider agendas based on nationalism. Especially as the user had called the subject "Ankit Singh" and made a delete based on a contentious statement that the Maharaja as "Head of the House of Dogra is not even an operational office of government," which is the official line of the government of India, though in contrary to this statement by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir made in July 2015: "The sovereignty of the State of J&K under the rule of Maharaja... legally and constitutionally remained intact and untampered,”--Int Researcher (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - Given how irrational that this user is becoming, it is evident that he can't really be taken seriously at this point. See Talk:Ankit_Love#Deletion_of_Security_Concerns, Talk:Ankit_Love#Deletion_of_association_with_George_Galloway, Talk:Ankit_Love#Deletion_of_American_and_Art_Schooling for accusations that Wikipedia editors are part of a wide-spread conspiracy by American intelligence agencies to suppress information regarding Ankit Love. This is in spite of the fact that nobody cares about Ankit Love, and the lack of notability is why his article is being nominated for deletion to begin with. I do not believe I am in violation of the assumption of good faith, as I have reason to believe that the editor is acting in bad faith, given his single purpose account used strictly for Ankit Love topics, his inability to comprehend WP:NPOV (see edit history on Ankit Love and the content he has written, presumed WP:COI given his exclusivity on the previously mentioned topics and unsourced original research on the article (see article revision history), ownership of all articles related to Ankit Love (see article revision history in which he keeps reverting edits and engaging in edit wards. as well, see Talk:Ankit Love and the history of sockpuppetry on this topic. I do not believe that the House of Dogra is a valid office whatsoever. The claim is limited to his own statements, and the user references numerous articles that doesn't even reference himself/Ankit Singh or Love. The sources that are independent and notable largely do not mention him. He has no supporters whatsoever in Kashmir from the sources I have ascertained, and therefore, his claim is not legitimate. It is not a matter of whether or not he, himself, claims the throne, it is a matter of whether his claim is notable whatsoever, and from the research I have done, it is not. As well, I merely removed the infobox, which User:FyddleStix agreed that such a claim was allowable in the article itself, but not in an infobox. I personally believe that the user User:Int Researcher is either Ankit Love, a colleague of Ankit Love, or someone out to make Ankit Love look bad by making an alternate account for the sole reason of making him seem entirely irrational and stupid. The former-most option is the most likely of them all. However, the conclusion is inescapable, and that his article should be deleted for lack of notability because nobody cares about him, his illegitimate and unbacked claims for an inoperational office of government, or what work he has done. To reiterate for User:Int Researcher's sake, it is reasonable to assume that nobody cares about Ankit Love, and given that he is so insignificant in the grand scheme of the Kashmir Conflict, it is more likely in all reality, that nobody cares. It is far more likely that you are accusing editors of being part of an American Intelligence operation to suppress information about Ankit to cover your own inconsistent and lack thereof an actual defense to the matter, or to make Ankit Love look insane in the eyes of the general public. Cyanhat (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I'm going to stop now quite frankly. This is going no where for the both of us, and it is evident you are just trying to antagonise the editors who refute your apprehensive behaviour and largely unsourced research. You are welcome to have the last word, for now. Cyanhat (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment once again statements such a "I have reason to believe that the editor is acting in bad faith", with the key word there being "believe" show violation of assumption of good faith. With the key word there being "assumption", a belief to the contrary would be thus violation of the policy then.--Int Researcher (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Personal and unsourced suppositions such as "it is more likely in all reality that nobody cares" are not criteria to judge notability by on wikipedia. Published secondary reliable sources are, which the subject of the article has "significant coverage" of in reality and by which he meets the wikipedia policy of WP:GNG.--Int Researcher (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Please refrain from using my words to attack other editors. My words do not reflect the opinions of others. Cyanhat (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: To elaborate further specific on suppositions here of "marginally sourced grandious claims" is once again an unsourced and potentially fallacious opinion. Consider that headlines in published sources such as "Emperor of Kashmir' running for London mayor. This is not a joke", Kashmir Has A King, Living in Exile and Meet Ankit Love, The 32-Year-Old 'Maharaja Of Jammu & Kashmir' in Huff post in reality do exist, as well as this published report in Huck magazine in which the reporter states "On the basis of this research – which from my little investigation seems legit – Ankit Love claims to be the current Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir." I sincerely wonder if people have actually fully read and watched all the citations before getting involved in editing this article.--Int Researcher (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notice I've tidied up a number of your comments as they were sprawled everywhere - please keep this page tidy. Also a friendly reminded to keep things civil. Any comments or personal attacks about identity or national origin - no matter how true - have no place here and do not meaningfully contribute to the discussion. This AfD is to determine whether Love is notable. Let's keep this as the focus. Thanks. N4 (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to User:Int Researcher's keep opinion. I am the original nominator. Yes, there are many articles in which Love is the featured subject or mentioned in - far more of the latter than the former - but all those articles comprise normal coverage of an election campaign. To illustrate, there are a great many articles in which the election's other independent candidate, Prince Zylinski, is mentioned yet we do not have an article on Zylinksi because he, like Love, has not received significant coverage as an individual required to fulfil the basic general notability guideline regardless of the number of promotional media appearances available to source. In the absolute best case scenario, if we were to somehow conclude that Love is notable (which simply isn't going to happen given that the seven of us prior to your arrival had reached a snow delete consensus and that you've demonstrated repeatedly an inabilty to maintain a neutral point of view), he still wouldn't merit an article as he would only be notable for one event. He should simply be mentioned in the candidates section of London mayoral election, 2016 as he already is. I have sincerely seen zero argument for otherwise. N4 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to N4's delete opinion There was also coverage of Love in published secondary sources prior to this election. Further the connection revealed in regards to Love's royal and political family is distinctly different from Prince Zylinski who's contest seems to be a one off as an independent with the main policy to ban Farage from London. Love is the leader and founder of a registered British political party that wishes to legalise cannabis and promotes renewable energies amongst other policies. He is also contesting again with the One Love Party in the Tooting MP by-election on 16 June, which the Prince is not. Further the political and historical context of Love's father that leads and founded the Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party as highlighted in the citations is of notable encyclopaedic value and that has decades of sources in it self which once again the Prince does not. Consider why Carlos, Duke of Parma, Chelsea Clinton, Fatima Bhutto have pages here on wiki in regards to their royal and political families.Further Zylinski may still qualify for an article here. Just because one has not been created thus far does not mean that it could not already be included.--Int Researcher (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I'm going to assume that you agree Love is not notable as per the first three bullet points of my nomination (WP:MUSICBIO, WP:DIRECTOR, WP:POLITICIAN) and assume that you're arguing for his notability based entirely on his claim as Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir. If that's the case, I'll put aside his involvement in the elections as that's not relevant to his claimed notability. With Zylinksi, you have entirely missed my point - he may qualify for an article but that notability would be independent from his electoral campaign - but again I'll assume good faith and set aside the political line in favour of the royal line of enquiry that appears to be your argument here.
You assert that Love is in pre-election secondary sources - show me the sources. The three sources on Love's article relating to his claim (sources 4/5/6) all date April/May 2016. The three sources relating to his family's movement from Jammu and Kashmir (sources 12/13/14) all date May 2016. If you can find me two or three independent sources that pre-date his election campaign demonstrating Love's claim, I will be happy to reconsider my position. Two other points. Regarding the "political and historical context of Love's father" - that doesn't help your cause as notability is not inherited and his father has his own article. Regarding Carlos, Clinton and Bhutto, they are all notable in their own right regardless of their heritage satisfying the WP:GNG while I do not believe Love does. N4 (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to N4 notability (music) Love meets "1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources." as listed above. He meets "2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." FMQB is a national radio chart. He meets "11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." MTV and VH1 are national music channels he is play listed here as one of the 58 tracks on the "VH1 Fresh New Music Playlist" January 2012 alongside aritsts such as fun., Lenny Kravitz, Benny Benassi, Trey Songz and Gym Class Heroes. He has notability as a WP:POLITICIAN too, while, "3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Regardless of whether coverage was "normal campaign coverage," it's clearly significant and London is a high profile election, and there is the whole political family context from a war zone to add to the notability which one reliable source called "historic". He also meets WP:ENT 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. His facebook fan page has over 160,000 followers. He also meets WP:CREATIVE 3. multiple independent periodical articles. Yet it is the claim to the title of Maharaja of a disputed Sovereign and terror plagued State that is most significant and that has brought so much interest to this article in the first place. The claim is covered in multiple reliable sources. No clear policy on wikipedia of notability of royal claimants exist, however in an encyclopaedic sense this is simple, if a person is from a royal family they make claim to a title, it can even be disputed but still merits encyclopaedic inclusion such as the disputed title of Emperor of Brazil that was abolished in 1889 but is claimed by both Luiz and Pedro Carlos. Thus Love's claim to Jammu and Kashmir that was still directly ruled by the Maharaja till 1952 and till date is disputed has encyclopaedic value. A matter of fact his claim at this point is undisputed. Unless someone can find a reliable source pertaining to another claimant. That's why this story was published in several secondary sources in Asia despite the election being in London. There is also a List of current pretenders that are here on wikipedia, thus given the full context of the subject and his royal ancestry, his claim clearly merits inclusion. Maybe you don't like royal claims or find them grandiose, however in history those with royal ancestry making such claims especially when covered in the media should be included in an encyclopaedia. That's why baby Prince George has an article here already. Royalty is one exception where notability can actually be inherited. You cant argue with the history of royal ancestry, this can't be deleted in an encyclopaedia even if it's unpopular.--Int Researcher (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive arguments and accusations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reply to Int Researcher - (This was originally posted in Talk:Ankit_Love#Deletion_of_Bhim_Singh.27s_support_for_Love.27s_concept_of_reunion_of_India.2C_Pakistan_and_Bangladesh - In response to your notion that somehow notability is inherited in the cases of powerful or wellknown children of government officials and royalty: Bilawal Bhutto Zardari is a well-known politician and thus is notable. The baby Prince George of Cambridge has aroused significant media attention for the past few years and thus is notable. Chelsea Clinton is a well-known figure in the United States for her role as an NBC correspondent and charity backer and thus is notable. [In continuation of this point for this specific AfD: All the individuals you list on Wikipedia have attained notability in some form or manner.] Notability is not inherited (see WP:INHERIT), but in those cases, those individuals aroused media attention and met notability guidelines based on coverage and the fact they were in the eyes of the public quite frequently. Mr. Ankit is not notable (sparing election coverage of the London Elections which does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines), and seeing as he does not inherit notability, and given that Ankit Love is not on the mind of the public nor a valid contender for anything, simply means that the statements inherent are not notable whatsoever. Therefore, the removal of such statements are valid and justified. Cyanhat (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Cyanhat In writing "Reply to Ankit Singh" you are once again in repeated violation of wikipedia's policy to assume good faith and are being uncivil. There is enough media coverage on Ankit Love for him to be notable under multiple angles of WP:GNG as mentioned above have you read the sources? Just one specific instance of meeting notability (music) of "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." is that he was on the VH1 Fresh New Music Playlist: January 2012 in the USA. To want to delete my comments or sources on a talk page is blatantly wrong. I would appreciate if the admin User:Ymblanter who placed the "Ankit Love" page under full protection yesterday would be so kind as too look into this.--Int Researcher (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Int Researcher, the response made by Cyanhat above was neither uncivil nor a violation of any of Wikipedia's policies regarding good faith assumptions. I think you should review and understand Wikipedia's assume good faith and civility policies and guidelines before you accuse others of violating them. You've also contributed a lot of discussion here, which is appearing to dive off-topic and away from the root of which this AFD exists to discuss. Perhaps you should take a break from here for a bit. Remember... Wikipedia is not about winning :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By my humble beliefs referring to me as "Ankit Singh" when I have made it clear I have no association with the subject, who's name in the first place is "Ankit Love" does seem to be in violation of assume good faith policy. Regardless User:Oshwah maybe you are right on that I should take a break from all this, as this is indeed getting tiring thank you.--Int Researcher (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Int Researcher - Ahh... Okay... I see what you mean. I didn't catch that at all. If he is calling you "Ankit Singh" with the implication that you are a COI, then yes... that can be interpreted as behavior that I'd see as nonconstructive. Cyanhat, it appears that Int Researcher is interpreting your reference to "Ankit Singh" as calling him a COI editor. I'm not sure what the intentions are, as I don't have the full story, but let's refer to others by their username so that no misinterpretations or frustrations will flare up. We don't want to upset other editors; we want to stick to the root of the discussion and make content-related arguments. Can we do that? :-) ...If we are reading your reference incorrectly, please let us know. Otherwise, lets be impartial here and stick to the content :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to User:Int Researcher and User:Oshwah - Apologies to both of you. It was late when I wrote this and got things mixed up. Modified the reply to Int Researcher for this. Points within continue to remain standing. Cyanhat (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cyanhat - Thanks for letting us know about the mistake. No worries; we all make them! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FMQB is not an IFPI-certified national chart, so it does not count toward the establishment of notability under NMUSIC's "charting hit" criterion. The only US-based chart that's listed in WP:CHART as satisfying that criterion, in fact, is Billboard. Another requirement for a chart to satisfy that criterion is that the charts are archived somewhere that we can directly verify the claimed chart positions — self-promoting musicians often claim to have had much bigger charting hits than they really did, so we need to be able to explicitly confirm the chart position a song or album actually did or didn't attain. But FMQB's "charts" are not archived anywhere. And in terms of his political endeavours, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election — a person has to win the election, and thereby hold a notable office, to attain notability on the basis of their political activity. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply "If anything it may be your understanding of notability and your neutrality that maybe questionable, and perhaps you should not have moved the order of my comments before." I moved your comments before so that the comments on this page are in chronological order - the order in which we post things. You would do well to post things in chronological order yourself as then editors can actually follow a discussion.
Your suggestion that I am less than neutral is a very serious allegation. You will note that in my comment 22:50, 27 May, only the second comment I've made here since my original nomination, you will see that I, in good faith, made the effort to understand exactly what you believe his claim to notability is.
I acknowledged that if we go down the royal line there may be a claim to notability, acknowledged that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir may give rise to credibility to his claim and noted that you say there's evidence of his claim pre-election. So, I done what very few editors were be prepared to do and asked that you provide a few sources so I could look it over in more detail.
Not only did you come back and offer me the grand sum of jack shit to support your assertion that he's a notable royal pre-election but you then insult the one person who's made effort to understand your position rather than simply criticise it as the illogical perspective of a cult-of-personality fanatic that you seemingly are. Your insistence here and habit of turning things personal is bordering on harassment. If you want to talk neutrality, start by looking in a mirror.
This discussion is closed. Consensus has been overwhelmingly reached. Ankit Love will be deleted. If you are truly incapable of understanding why there is nothing I or any other editor here can do to reason you out of a position you never reasoned yourself into. N4 (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to N4 I do sincerely apologise if I offended you, that was not my intention. But I don't know if you have been following this thread, the false accusations and attacks started against me first. Saying things like "sum of jack sh*t" and "start by looking at your self in the mirror" is hurtful but I can understand you are passionate, as am I, yet I have not used foul language here. But I appreciate we are all human here and this article and the Kashmir conflict it references certainly makes people impassioned after all it's an ongoing armed conflict. You asked me a question about providing sources for notability, I went and did the research and presented sourced secondary content. It's not my fault that these sources exist. In terms of reordering comments, I apologise once again if your intentions were only to reorganise comments, I have felt comments by other editors may not have been reordered, so I was feeling singled out. The only article I could find pre-election was this one on CNN but it's on ireport to clarify on June 2015. However, I feel having articles before on his royal status are not necessary, as once the royal connection has been reported in reference to royalty it encapsulates the history of that royal family and dynasty before too, for which sources exist prior to the election of-course. WP:ROYALTY I believe it would be unfair to close the discussion like this, especially if you "acknowledged that if we go down the royal line there may be a claim to notability." I thank you for your consideration.--Int Researcher (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The only reason I decided to weigh-in after making the nomination was to establish whether there could actually be any value in what your saying where other editors were not prepared to do so - as demonstrated on Love's talk page. If I was not neutral I would not have done so. I completely accept your apology. Likewise, I apologise for my lack of restraint in my counter-arguments. I can also reassure you that the sole purpose was to put the comments in order and that comments by User:Cyanhat were affected too.
My position is that Love is not a notable musician, director or politician but may be a notable royal. If a claim to notability exists, it comes about through his claim as Maharaja and cannot be supported by his work in music, film or activism. I asked for sources demonstrating his claim as Maharaja pre-dates his election campaign. You did not provide such sources until the CNN article in your most recent comment - and yes, it does appear both reliable and independent. It provides new information that we didn't previously have and we may or may not be able to use it to establish notability. I'm going to take a break from this for 24 hours or so (couldn't keep away!) and would recommend you do the same. I'll be back to reassess the situation later. N4 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Your source is far less reliable and independent than first appears. It even comes with the disclaimer "not verified by CNN" as it isn't actually by CNN - anyone could create it. Reading through the article, it consists of the same sort of grandiose royal claims that exist in the other less-than-reliable sources we've seen to date - the only source for such claims is Love himself. Stepping back, we do not have any reliable, independent sources at all to base Love's claim to notability (Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir) on. I therefore reiterate my support for delete. N4 (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer if this closes as delete please WP:SALT the title. In this person ever becomes notable then going through WP:AFC will not be too great a hardship for whomever wants to write the article and will prevent others from needing to sort through all sorts of marginally sourced grandious claims such as we have had in both this version of the article as well as the last. JbhTalk 17:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Agreed. A WP:SALT would be very helpful and help prevent future protracted and heated discussions in the future. If Ankit Love does become relevant in the future, it wouldn't be hard to go about creating an article with approval. If the consensus does become delete, then I think this course of action would be the most effective step. Cyanhat (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the nominator and the reasons cited above. The page was definitely created and expanded by SPA and COI accounts, and the sources do not appear to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, while others do not appear to be secondary, leading to the failure of WP:GNG (and largely due to the fact that significant coverage doesn't appear to exist, which is a required attribute). I also agree that salting should be considered if conflict continues to arise after deletion (the article is currently fully protected due to content disputes). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck !vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

* Strong Keep: Wow. What passions! It looks heaven will fall for some people if this page is allowed to stay. People favouring deletion feel that Ankit Love has no notability. I feel This artist has been in public eye for long time and has enough name to be called a public figure. My mom or my village people have no knowledge of Obama or Michael Jackson does not mean they have no notability. Wiki is international forum and sure knows public notability is relevant from place to place.

I feel by raising the issues of killer air pollution, poor housing and killer loan problems in the life of young students and above all the dangers of nuclear weapons in the hot bed of terrorist activities in south East Asia, he has caught the eyes of the powers to be who will like to crush any voice which is against War, against killing of innocent people and against Imperialistic treachery against people.

Today Mr. Obama has said in Japan that the we should commit to a nuclear free world. We need moral revolution. Looks like he read Ankit Love's page. This is what exactly Ankit Love is demanding. A revolution to save the world. A moral revolution. A nuclear free world. The delirious delete lovers have not got it.They will like to keep the Iron control on the world power by deleting people who are raising the voice to save the world.

One Love Party is about 7 months old not yet born properly, yet by raising the issues of injustice against people by the democratically elected Govts, it has raised so much passion among powers to be. They are afraid that people will demand the security against air pollution, against nuclear weapons just in case Love Party succeeds to spread the revolution to save the world. Therefore kill it knock it out..

It is clear from the tone and choice of words of the discussions that the most powerful have taken it on themselves to crush the voice of dissent and revolution. Ankit Love and his party colleagues have hit the bull's eyes so naturally the bulls are raging and chasing to boot the Love Party in the arena of public life.

Kashmir is a complex 69 year old problem. Ankit Love, through his artistic presentation made large section of people including wiki editors aware of this problem. So far majority of world population had no knowledge. Kashmir, a hot bed of terrorist activities and thriving Nuclear rivalries between three Nuclear nations China, Pakistan, and India is taking the world towards Nuclear War. Ankit Love it seems in his own artistic mocking way is warning the whole world of the dangers of such looming disasters. He surely have annoyed the " Power Club'.

Under politicians wiki policy is: political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Love party is only seven months old. The kind of coverage the most reputed radio station, TV stations, World renowned News web sites, and alternative media has given to Ankit Love and Love Party is proof enough that they have understood the importance of this new movement. Some of them said that they were rooting for this Unique young man and his programs and he was worth your vote. If that is not notability what it will be?

What Ankit Love and his friends achieved in two weeks time without any resources is amazing. Why grudge a satirical self praise. Are heavens, religions or social norms going to fall because of that. As for his self publicity which political leader or artist does not do that, Will you recommend to delete trump or Hillary on that criteria.

Is it the policy of WP to allow its editor to kill the voice of dissent without even knowing the credentials of the editors and allow the powerful criminal politicians to rule the world without any one challenging them.

On a serious note does WP has the same policy to keep a check on its volunteers. Is it not possible that some of them willingly or unwillingly are working under the agenda of powers to be and helping to kill the voice of dissent and eventually democratic systems. It will be worth a investigation how many of them are for real or how many are moles planted by the most powerful. Wikipedia should not allow witch hunting of innocent people especially those who are trying to challenge the Royalty which exist today in the life style of many elected leaders. We are spending more money on War than food for people. We are spending more money on the flight of leaders to meet to discuss poverty than to help the poor. We are spending more money on creating terrorists than to protect the venerable. Elected leaders have made this world a killers den and a impossible place to live without fear. Love Party is making an attempt to stop the stench.

In a very short time these kids have been able to raise awareness and has been covered surprisingly positively by the world press. Huffington Post will not take note or Live TV will not waste time if they did not think it was good to have such a Party. It is only one person who does not even have a users page on wiki is so passionately try to kill the beginning of a revolution. he has taken it on self not only to kill the page but break the spirit of Ankit Love by using the harshest possible language.

He is a man known for his strong ideas against War, against misuse of democratic powers, against injustice the invisible forces. Wiki is a serious forum and should not allow the moles to be present in it fold.. Deleting the page will be deleting the voice which is crying for justice for all. love for all and peace for all.This may contribute to kill the freedom of expression. Think again. I feel not only notability this page passes all other criteria. The reference to royalty is a matter which cannot be reason for deletion. Please listen to Ankit's song which he wrote 4 years ago. "It's a mental revolution we need no War". He is a man known since long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peopleunite (talk • contribs) 09:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I'm striking out this vote, as it is obviously made by a COI / SPA. If this is not acceptable or appropriate, any experienced editor may remove the redaction. Just let me know if you do so. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes even I agree with User:Oshwah here in striking out that vote. As the comment by "Peopleunite" is not helping create a constructive debate based on wikipedia policy and is too long, convoluted and off specific topic. I would suggest to User talk:Peopleunite to study the way wikipedia works before getting involved in this debate again. WP:NPOV and WP:GNG--Int Researcher (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:POLITICIAN. In a campaign as prominent as that for Mayor of London, even the "no hope" candidates are going to get a lot of publicity. The consensus is that local councillors and failed political candidates (and even prospective ones) are NN, unless and until elected. Unless he is notable for other reasons (which I cannot judge), we should not keep this article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have we not hit the point of SNOW DELETE yet? There is not a snowball's chance in hell of this article not being deleted. The article is full protected and the only keep vote is from the article creator. Someone please have mercy on this thread and close it so we do not have three more days of pointles argument. JbhTalk 16:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck !vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

DELETE: I'm Ankit Love & I want this ridiculous article deleted now! Got a msg on my fb bout this delete chat the other day, thought the page of me were already removed last year. and dude I was wondering why I was losing traffic on ankitlove.com, cause this thing ranks top on google! wft!? I lost tens of thousands of hits during the london election on my web site, I dont want the same for tooting. I hate that this says "He claims to be", that's nonsense man, I am the Emperor, I already claimed it!! If peps dont get i'm a Sovereign head of State that's their problem, shouldn't be the 1st thing on google bout me. It's so offensive to my cause and family that this ranks above my own political and commercial sites and anyone can write anything here like that bs guardian review of my music, it was not even a rap song, and they should not have called me a "sun god", just cause some people believe my family's descended from him, that's so insulting to our religion too. Last year some mad stalker hacked my social media and linkdin accounts and really put ridiculous things on a wiki page about buddha just cause there is a belief my family is related to him, for which my mother got stoned in J&K. I am dealing with a war zone ppl!! Do you know what that feels like!? My cousin is a Major and had his leg blown off on a land mine, my uncle is a Colonel and got shot in the war. & all this info can be dangerous to my life and that of my family if it's not controlled right. So it's total bs that this type of site takes over SEO. If people really want to help me, then any wiki thing about me should be banned from being made EVER!! My family has been fighting against 7 terrorist groups in J&K for over 40 years including taliban & al-queada and I'm gonna take those mofos down for destroying my life!! So I dont need to also have to deal with this bs info. It don't help me man. I want this deleted, gone NOW, thats an order!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir (talk • contribs) 17:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Redacting vote. Obviously not here to contribute productively to this discussion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that you really are who you claim to be, please note that the article will be kept or deleted based on our inclusion policies, not your own personal public relations desires, and if it does get kept (which is unlikely) its content will be governed by our content and reliable sourcing policies, not your own personal public relations desires. In fact, per our conflict of interest rules you get no special privileges to control the existence and/or content of the article. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all unheard of for people to request or demand deletion of an article about them — especially a certain class of self-promoting wannabes who are inconvenienced by the fact that our content policies prevent them from controlling it. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OR discussion/wall of text about nobility. Please take further discussion to article talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment I've been looking into Love's claim. Obviously this is original research so I'm not too sure if this helps but figured having done the research I may as well declare it in case there are interested parties.
Love's father is Bhim Singh, who is descended from Zorawar Singh (1786-1841) of the Dogra dynasty. To get from Love (born 1983) to a Maharaja, you have to go up the family tree 197 years (that's 7 to 10 generations) then sideways across the family tree as Zorawar Singh is not of the royal line. Love is not descended from any of the Maharajas. Not only that but his claim is through an ancestor who died five years before the installment of the first Maharaja, Gulab Singh, in 1846.
On top of all this, the last person to officially hold the title of Maharaja is still alive AND politically active AND has children AND grand-children of his own. Love is not "royal", nor a "claimant". He is a self-obsessed narcissist who propagated a delusional "I am Emperor" claim in order to gain media attention and notoriety during the mayoral election. No notability as has been discussed many times above.
It's been an enjoyable ride but I must support a snow delete and salt. N4 (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we are venturing into the domain of original research lets first point out that based on my research in the context of this case, the claim made by User:The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir to be Ankit Love is profoundly dubious. I sincerely doubt a royal of Love's background and education would express himself so primitively here. I believe this could be a ploy added here to accelerate the deletion process without giving the full time and consideration to this debate. Especially judging by the comments that have followed. Next, N4 I am glad you mentioned the ex crown prince Karan Singh here, from my research Karan Singh was never coronated as the Maharaja, he was in fact only the Prince Regent and then abdicated to become the President of Jammu and Kashmir in 1952. This is clear in the interview Karan Singh himself gave to Outlook Magazine saying "I followed Pandit Nehru and not my father." So him being simply still alive is not sufficient grounds to throw out Love's claim. This in it self is nothing unique either, please remember after Edward VIII abdicated as King of England, he was still living through the reign of the current Queen Elizabeth II. Further you bring up that Karan Singh and his children are involved politically still in India, well further research indicates that would be grounds to exclude them from being the Maharaja. In fact Karan Singh was a cabinet minister in the government of India that passed the 26th Constitutional Amendment of 1971 that barred all Indian citizens from holding royal titles that would include his children too. Remember Love is not an Indian citizen, he is a British citizen which means that amendment would not legally apply to him anymore. This also is comparable to the Act of Settlement 1701 in the United Kingdom where all Catholics were disqualified from inheriting the British throne, same goes with the throne of Jammu and Kashmir all Indian citizens are disqualified from inheriting it. Once again Love does not claim royal heritage through Prime Minister & General Zorawar Singh. While he is related to Zorawar his royal lineage is through an even older Dogra line of Prince Mian Dev of Udhampur, son of Raja (King) Dhruv Dev (1703 - 1725) of Jammu as reported in this article on Kashmir Life magazine. Remember Karan Singh's father Maharaja Hari Singh (1925–1961) himself inherited the title from his uncle Pratap Singh (1885-1925), and that Maharaja Gulab Singh (1792–1857) from where Karan Singh's linage originates himself was not a direct Dogra heir and was a General in the army of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh who invaded Jammu in the early 19th century displacing Raja (King) Jit Singh and appointed him as initially as a vassal. It's also worth considering here that Love's father Bhim Singh won elections twice as an MLA in the Udhampur region and then also won a Member of Parliament election for the Indian government from Udhampur, while Love's cousin Harsh Dev won an MLA election from the area and was a cabinet minister in the Jammu and Kashmir government. I agree it is complex, but none the less these facts of history suggest Love's claim is notable for inclusion on wikipedia WP:ROYALTY. Further, there is no source anywhere of Karan Singh or his children making a claim to the title of Maharaja and neither for Love's father or cousins who are also citizens of India. To add even if there were two claimants it would still merit inclusion on wikipedia as is the case here with other even defunct Royal titles such as that of the King of Italy claimed by both Prince Amedeo and Vittorio Emanuele. I have done a lot of painstaking research and reading of complex histories, laws and conflicts to look beyond the surface of this situation and do sincerely hope my work will be considered appropriately in this debate.--Int Researcher (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Int Researcher: If I might inquire, why do you speak so highly of Ankit Love? You say his background prevents him from contributing to Wikipedia because it's "primitive". I would imagine many influential and well-regarded individuals are on Wikipedia. Not only that, but during the London Mayoral Elections, I recall him going onto the reddit.com/r/london subreddit, and using low-cost guerilla marketing to desperately hunt for votes. Not only that, but he also received the least amount of votes of any candidates. You would imagine someone from a wealthy, or at least prestigious background, would have significantly more media coverage, background and support. I don't think that Ankit Love is anywhere near as illustrious as you describe, and if he really was, he would be notable enough for a Wikipedia page (especially without a shill account, assuming that is the case, but you assert not so I won't further that) already that we wouldn't be having this discussion. You say he has incredible education: he doesn't. Harvard Doctorates and Rhodes Scholars edit on Wikipedia. Ankit Love has a partially-completed Bachelors degree from a third tier university according to his statements, that he dropped out of. And presumably numerous dubious attendances at educational institutions. I don't think his education is beyond any of us, in fact, I'm going to make the presumption that at least one other editor on this page has a bachelors degree. I'm going to firmly ask you a question, and this will infer whether or not you have a WP:COI and the accusatory statements you made before against other editors were mere hipocrisy: Why is it, that an anonymous single-purpose account claiming to be an impartial and neutral researcher of unknown credentials, has done significant genealogical, legal and historical research on an individual (perhaps even intruding on the privacy of Ankit Love in the sense of original research) that is largely unknown and by the general consensus of this Article for Deletion discussion, completely unnotable. I would hope to apply Occam's Razor to this matter. He has no significant backing from the Kashmir community, from what I have seen, and the statements about having a valid claim to be an emperor are largely from unreliable secondary sources. Given how well-informed you are, the more you write, I have become more and more skeptical about your intentions. If you have no connection to Ankit Love, how is it that you are so educated, specialized and determined in the matter of Ankit Love's claim to the throne? While this may seem like an accusatory reply, I actually genuinely want to know. The vast majority of editors on this page believe that you are engaged in a conflict of interest (see WP:COI), and with good reason, but this would clear things up pretty significantly if you can provide valid credentials and motives other than "I was interested and looked it up a bunch", "He's a notable individual and I thought he deserved a page on Wikipedia" or "I believe his claim to the throne is valid". I have yet to see individuals as determined as you are, desperate to keep such a page on Wikipedia when the consensus is to delete. I want to hear what exactly your side of the story is because evidently you have a massive vested interest in seeing this article persist, before I go off and believe in N4's claim that it seems this is nothing more than Ankit practicing his usual narcissism and pathological lying complex that I have seen during the London elections. And before you spout off on political partisanship and previous bias coming onto this thread because you keep doing that, especially with the absurdity of your American intelligence agency claims, keep in mind: I am currently being open about my activeness observing the London elections and London is a place that is very dear to me before I left. As well, I did not vote in the last election and I am currently not eligible to vote. I am not involved in London partisan politics. There is no conflict of interest with me and any other parties, and I am seeking to stand by Wikipedia's content and notability policies as best as I can to my knowledge. If the closing administrator or individual feels that I was biased in my decision-making, I don't have any objections and they're welcome to disregard my belief that this article should be deleted in favour of other opinions. And most of all: please don't respond to these questions with another accusation, or a personal attack, since you seem to have the nasty little habit of accusing everyone that disagrees with you of something heinous to deflect the negative attention, calling outs and accusations against you. This should be seen as a chance to make things right, and to re-establish your reputation since most believe you have a conflict of interest and cannot abide by notability guidelines. Cyanhat (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to User:Cyanhat: Dear Cyanhat, please allow me to start by apologising for my pervious beliefs that you were harbouring some nationalistic agenda. I can see clearly see that this was not the case now, you are clearly erudite and were acting with the best intentions, and I do respect that. However, if you had seen life from my perspective, there are many things that are not always as they seem and we do live in a world rife with misinformation. Now to address your points: Once again I believe we are starting with a misunderstanding, do allow me to clarify. I did not mean at all wikipedia is "primitive." I do respect wikipedia, that's why I have exhausted so much effort here and appreciate the fact there are many qualified individuals here. What I meant was behaviour from User:The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir was primitive when he claims to be Ankit, he should know better than making remarks in that fashion here. Call me old fashioned but this is not what I consider royal protocol. You of-course ask many valid questions about who I may be and my comments on Love's eduction. If we go by the sourced information, may I ask what you know of his school ACS Cobham? Are you aware that it costs £44,360 a year for boarding there, this despite it was only founded in 1967? While I am sure you have heard of Eton college college that was founded in 1440 and costs £37,062 per annum to attend or Harrow School founded in 1243 that costs £36,150 per annum for boarding. So one would certainly hope, for that price they would have taught User:The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir some better and more specific use of the English language. Consider now also who this school would attract with these sorts of fees? It's curious how conspiracy theorists speak of the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group, but no one has ever mentioned ACS Cobham the most expensive school in the UK. Once again we are getting into the territory of "personal research" but from my sources a member of the Al Nayhan family, a son of Roman Abramovich, a son of Roberto Cavalli, a son of Mohamed Al-Fayed and a son of Bob Dudley have all attended ACS Cobham. Yet I'd hazard a guess no one had even heard of this school before here? The thing is, when you move within certain circles you are privy to information others would never even cogitate, or perhaps find grandiose. I had known something about the Kashmir conflict, the Dogras, Karan Singh and Bhim Singh before the London elections, as I had of many other seemingly trivial conflicts such as the Balochistan conflict in Pakistan and Iran and the royal family of the Nawab Khair Bakhsh Marri who had KGB associations and even his youngest son Mehran Marri who lives in the UK, but I was completely unaware of this character Ankit Love until these Mayoral elections. Which threw me by surprise with the knowledge I do have, how could I not know of him? Through the sources on Ankit's claim and my own knowledge on this region, I was able to direct my research and conclusions. You see if Ankit Love is genuine and behaves like a gentleman he signifies a lot of hope for the Middle East. Of-course, I had already known the CIA's Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan but had not before connected it to the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir till I researched the time line of the story of Ankit Love, as it connects so many seemingly divergent histories I knew of before. Perhaps it is too good to be true, but if it's a construct then well I'm flabbergasted. Consider Bin Laden was captured 2011 in Abbottabad that borders Jammu and Kashmir and the SAS and Delta Force were sent to Kashmir after 9/11 in 2002 as it was suspected by Intelligence agencies that Laden was being harboured there by Harkat-ul-Mujahideen who were initially trained by the CIA when they were called Harkat-ul-Ansar during Operation Cyclone in the 80s as reported in this article by the Telegraph newspaper. Though, I will confess if User:The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir is Ankit, I am certainly disappointed in this young man's conduct here, I would have accepted better behaviour on a public forum having attend ACS Cobham school. Perhaps, in the way I have been observing the Middle East, he seemed like a fresh hope out of nowhere. It was as if he was the best kept secret. Indeed why did not the mass media report more on him more? Perhaps he is just a wannabe, fabricating all this and our media realised so, or perhaps too there is possibility the owners of the for-profit media wanted to suppress his story. Remember some people profit greatly from conflicts, and peace is not in their business interests. These very people may be the owners of the media or oil companies or even illicit drugs trafficker. Were you aware that Ahmed Wali Karzai brother of the Afghanistan President was on the CIA payroll of 8 years until 2008 and has allegations of opium trafficking for the CIA as noted on this wikipedia page here. Maybe I read too much between the lines with Ankit Love trying to legalise drugs as a reaction to these intelligence agency activities in the Middle East. Thus I thought I was doing the world a favour by adding his claims here. I cannot fully reveal who I am here as I have concerns for my safety with all I have written here, but clearly I have more than a novice understanding of intelligence actives and royalty internationally. Do you know of the Freemasons, and their involvement in the French revolution? Or that Prince Philip Mountbatten has to the freemasons? That his uncle Lord Louis Louis Mountbatten signed the Instrument of Accession that started the war in Kashmir in the first place? Do you know that Prince Michael of Kent is the head of a freemason lodge established in Buckingham Palace as reported in the Daily Mail and they outsource computer services as revealed in this article on the Telegraph. That is why I default to my suggestion of Intelligence agencies and secret societies here. Also Cyanhat I do not know who you are either, and I don't mean this to cause any offence, as I believe you are genuine now. But you ask for my qualifications while you have not revealed anything on your wikipeida profile whatsoever, it does not even have a user page: User:Cyanhat, but maybe this is just an oversight. But what I know is in central Asia, things can change fast as they did in Iran when the CIA in the royalist 1953_Iranian_coup_d'état removed a democratically elected government and replaced them with the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and Jammu and Kashmir is even more unstable today, and seeing how the whole affair in the Middle East is governed by intelligence agencies including the Russian FSB, Pakistani ISI, Mossad, Indian RAW and the Saudi GIP this could be in or against the interest of any of those groups. This place Jammu and Kashmir now seems more and more curious to me, as even I was not fully aware of how clearly disputed the legislation of this territory were till I heard of Ankit and researched further. I was also unaware that the Dogra dynasty he claims royal lineage by has written recored history dating back to the 1300 BCE, that parallels the Egyptian Pharaohs now that should be fascinating for all. Perhaps it was wishful thinking but it would have been nice to see a young liberal leader ruling a Muslim majority state as a monarch one day as was once already attempted in Iran by the CIA, especially now in the current climate for us here. Now are you aware of how the CIA used modern art as a weapon in the Cold War despite President Truman not being aware as reported in this article on the Telegraph? Remember JFK was assassinated after his speech against secret societies at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. Are you aware of the Skull and Bones secret society at Yale University? And that General General Akthar Khan head of the Pakistani secret service from 1979-1987 had Yale University links and was a personal friend of William J. Casey the chief of the CIA during most of Operation Cyclone. General Khan had also once attended the same school Bishop Cotton School, Shimla as Ankit is reported to have. Or that the KGB chief Viktor Chebrikov had bribed the political Gandhi dynasty with billions of dollars in Switzerland to promote Soviet ideological interests during the time of Operation Cyclone according to Harvard fellow Yevgenia Albats and USSR Resolutions of Communist Party of the Soviet Union as reported by Outlook magazine in this article? It is believed now that Sonia Gandhi and her son Raul Gandhi now have a net worth of up to $19 billion according to this article in Business Insider. Thus if you were party to the information that I have had privilege to know, which I understand very few have, it would not be an unlikely assumption that intelligence agencies in the 21st century to use an anonymous information resource such as wikipedia to battle out their agendas, now this gives a whole new meaning to the term edit wars. Or another simpler consideration is perhaps Ankit is in fact insane, this could be the case too, as his relation to his father Bhim Singh and the Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party is clear. Maybe he should simply go back to Jammu and Kashmir and join the political party his mother and father founded in 1982 and see what happens and who gets in touch with him then. I cannot imagine what kind of person would want live in a ghastly hostel in Hackney as was reported in the Hackney Gazette, if in this situation, seeing the billions that have been invested in this region by intelligence agencies. Certainly not me, I would most likely have taken the money. Either way I am perplexed and personally would like to have confirmation if User:The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir is Ankit Love or not. Maybe it is him, I would be disappointed if it was and comments like that would only compromise his sources of funding in my view. As I would not have imagined from his media profile for him to be so concerned about the google ranking of his personal website, that’s not the important thing here. This is about history for me, a history of a region that was written in secret. This will probably be my last contribution on wikipedia and so I will close with two quotes from the Joseph Conrad's colonial classic novel the Heart of Darkness in the words of Marlowe, "All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz, and by and by I learned that most appropriately the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs had entrusted him with the making of a report for its future guidance." (p.49) and that "You can't judge Mr. Kurtz as you would an ordinary man." (p. 56)--Int Researcher (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject's very poor showing in the mayoral election means he fails WP:POLITICIAN. The other claims of notability - being head of the House of Sogra and a successful musician/producer - are self proclaimed and not backed up by independent sources. There are WP:RS that mention that Love makes these claims but they don't actually confirm the claims. There are also several WP:RS relating to his mayoral candidacy but that in itself does not make him notable - even the least notable candidate will receive some sort of mention in the media.--obi2canibetalk contr 11:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am amazed. How crude humans get against each other . All the people involved in this discussion seem to have taken a degree in bullying. This is indecent, barbaric, savage, brutal, merciless, monstrous and above all inhuman. It seems all the participants are vying for championship in bulling, intimidating, oppressing and tormenting. Nobody is caring about what kind of effect it is going to have on the person concern, the subject of this discussion. Wikipedia is spending charity money on such indecent attacks and counterattacks by the people involved in this discussion. Reconsider your policies. There is a law of the Land above all rules of different set ups on the internet. Tormenting and bulling people is not only inhumane but also against the law of land which this discussion is doing. Do not waste public money on such uncivil discussions. With freedom comes responsibility. Keeping any page or deleting is your prerogative. But allowing people to tear others people’s life is immoral and illegal. This is what happened in the past. Jesus claimed he was son of God without presenting any evidence and they put him on the Cross. Wikipedia should not do the same to His Children. To err is human. Throwing stones is inhumane and terrorism. Hopefully Wikipedia administrators will consider not allowing their pages to become the flashpoint of mental torture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangesky88 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Orangesky88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment User:Oshwah, what do you think about striking out this vote? I'll leave it up to your call. Cyanhat (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As heart felt as the above sentiment is, we need to stick to cold hard facts, sources and policy on wikipedia without prejudice. Thus, I would suggest also the redacting method as used by User:Oshwah previously. But not hatting, I do not believe anything should be hatted in this discourse.--Int Researcher (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further, here is a link to this page before it was truncated for anyone to wishing to consider such: http://www.freezepage.com/1464531439WORGCKCAPH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Int Researcher (talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redacted paranoid (and silly) attempt at a personal attack. This user has been making the strangest conspiracy based attacks on other editors throughout this discussion and on the article talk page. I suggest it may be about time they get an enforced time-out. If anyone else wants to unhat the above material go ahead, I just wanted to clean up the walls of text that showed no sign of ending and have no policy based bearing on this AfD. Discussions of various conspiracy theories should be limited to the talk page or better yet some blog. JbhTalk 16:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comrade no. In my reply to the questions on intelligence agencies asked to me initially by User:Cyanhat that was only covered up in a hat after my expose response, I had stated too that "this will probably be my last contribution on wikipedia," and it would have been had you not hatted it. Now you want block me from commenting with a time out too. You really want to silence and ridicule me. That's ok, I know who I am. But may I politely ask you user:Jbhunley a question please? And I would greatly appreciate if User:Oshwah & user:JMiall would observe this response too. user:Jbhunley how did you discover the Ankit Love page before it was nominated for delete, as I take it you are not from London? And as you say he is not notable how did you manage to hear about him all the way in America then? I see you speak some Russian too. Dah, sveedahneeyah tevarih.--Int Researcher (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with the AFD discussion regarding the article? Can we stay on topic and keep the discussion towards whether the article should be deleted or kept? I think that a lot of the responses and discussions here have delved very much away from the task at hand. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the AFD is based on determining whether this subject is notable or not. So it's worth considering that if the subject is not notable here in London even where he has just contested a mayoral election why and how are editors in America taking notice of his page? If he has not been published in any sources considered reliable, how did they discover him before the article was nominated for AFD. Of-course after the AFD listing it's understandable for people to get involved from all over. But prior to AFD if he is not notable, it seems strange people outside London and India where he was in the news would have taken so much notice of him, and spend so much time having his page deleted, if it was so unnoticeable by itself. So I am just curious to know how it was discovered in the USA. I believe that there is logic in that notion, and I am sure there can be a reason too, and so I am genuinely openminded here to know.--Int Researcher (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notice regarding sockpuppetry. "I find it most unfair that user:Jbhunley struck out my vote and concealed my commentary in reply to User:Cyanhat's last questions for me..." I'd ask the closing admin consider this statement an admission of exactly the sort of sockpuppetry I warned about in my original nomination as has been seen in the previous deletion discussion. Note that User:Jbhunley hatted the struck votes by the suspected COI/SPA accounts User:Peopleunite and User:The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir. User:Int_Researcher's "struck out my vote" would seem to suggest that one of the comments hatted belongs to them. N4 (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to User:N4 My dear N4, I do apologise for the confusion caused. I can clearly see my vote was not hatted, but much of my other work is. The comment you refer to was also written in the heat of the moment after I had seen a long complex page with many things hatted and it looked to me like all my comments had been hatted. After I had spent considerable time writing a reply to User:Cyanhat. I am confident in my logic in a debate, but I accept, I not perfect, so I apologise for the confusion. Clearly I was the one questioning the integrity of the votes of User:The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir and User:Peopleunite initially too. Really you can even delete those for all I care, I was most hurt my reply to User:Cyanhat is hatted, that was the crux for me. It's unfair to nit pick though on the technicalities of my comments and not address the core issue I have also raised too. And I believe it's a fair to inquire how user:Jbhunley discovered Ankit Love in America. If the answer is completely innocent then there would be no harm in knowing the source. And I concur there could be many viable explanations too as user:Jbhunley believes Ankit Love is not notable, perhaps he may have simply come across Ankit in real life.--Int Researcher (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The alternate explanation, which has the extra benefit of being true, is I came accross this article the last time someone tried to get it into Wikipedia. You should also read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Love where I !voted KEEP! I voted !DELETE here becuase the chart I based my other vote on is not a chart Wikipedia accepts for notability, as was explained in my !vote here and by at least one other editor. You really should read background material like that. JbhTalk 11:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry User:Jbhunley. Yes I have gone through it now and can see that. I hope I did not cause you any offence. Unfortunately I found out too much about intelligence tactics before retiring, so perhaps sometimes I default to that. In that world you cannot trust anyone. Agents, double-agents and even triple agents. I have clearly spent so much time on researching this article, so it feels painful that my work will be deleted too. But we are all human here, until those AI bots do come. And perhaps you are right maybe all this information is better off on some blog. In any case I am terribly sorry, old sport. I know how it feels to have false accusations thrown at you when you are innocent, and it does hurt. So please do forgive me. I wish you and America all the best with liberty and justice for all! :-) Sorry.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. JbhTalk 13:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Nom and as per closing administrator on previous AFD and salt.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This guy almost qualifies for recognition as a total failure as a candidate, but we lack adequate sources noticing him as such to justify such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- Ankit Love stands for saving people from Air pollution, from homelessness, from being killed in Wars. NO ONE CARES ABOUT HIM says the mysterious editor in bold letters . What is this editor's notability. Ankit love has notability through out continents. America,Africa,Asia, Europe and Australia. Yes Millions of people may not know him as they surely do not know buffet or Mahatma Gandhi. Ankit Love sure is on right path and all young people have a right to boast. It is not harmful to any one. Ankit Love is not a fluke. I researched and found that he won Diana memorial Award in his high school. presented to him by a noble prize winner. He is a personality which is developing towards Peace.Justice and Love in the world. Love is not on trial here. Delete any body you hate but the editors have no right to dig the fangs in innocent souls and make them bleed. My mother never heard of Jimmy Wales neither more than 2/3 population of the world may have heard of him . That does not make him wannabe or narcissist for calling his site "It is like a temple for mind". watch out Jimmy and stop strange people bringing bad name to your site. And please do not waste peoples' hard earned money which they continue to give you in good faith. These editors definitely owe an apology to you and the contributors for going overboard in their bullying tactics and slurring the name of Wikipedia. The policies which are on wrong side of law cannot be kept. Strike them down. Do not play with peoples' mind. Let them pray in your temple.— Angeliceboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
A person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just because of individual users' subjective impressions of their mission in life. A person qualifies for a Wikipedia article on the basis of reliable source coverage which verifies specific and quantifiable accomplishments that satisfy our notability criteria — but nothing which satisfies either part of that equation has been shown here at all. It's nice that you're inspired by him, but being your personal hero is not what gets a person an article on here. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "It is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others" , says Jimmy Wales on his foundation page while appealing for donations.. IS THIS THE POLICY: or is it special because faceless ,ill informed , egoistic editors are given a free run to break hearts and minds of budding leaders , struggling artists and good doers. While writing my keep vote I saw their desire to win this one-sided. one person,the creator of page is the only one allowed. all other keep votes are deleted or struck down. what are you scared off.? The fact is that Mohammad came out of the cave and said to people that the angel came and told him words of God. Christ said that he was son of God and is conveying message of God. Krishna said he was God himself. Billions of people follow them today. No one call them narcissists or wannabe or publicity mongers. Is it that earlier people were more tolerant than today's progressed world seems to be. Angeliceboy (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)— Angeliceboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Ok perhaps there is a place for hatting here User:Oshwah if we are getting comments like this. This needs to be redacted or even hatted. Please all new users getting involved in this debate stick too wikipedia policies in presenting arguments. I am really tired, I am going to stop debating now and withdraw. I am sure many will be happy about that too. Apologies if this got so heated. I do wish everyone the best, even user:Jbhunley, perhaps your intentions are pure and I read too much into it and your profile, knowing what i do about intelligence agencies. That could be a possibility too, I admit that. Who know's maybe even Ankit Love is not notable enough for wikipedia too, the London and Indian coverage on TV and in the news about him may all be just a shell. I can see that's a possibility too now, one must be open to all possibilities. Perhaps I was hoping too much for a solution to the complex conflicts in the Middle East and jumped onto this. I am really open minded now. In the end I am sure we are all working towards the truth and peace, or we wouldn't spend so much time here writing for free and I'm sure it will come in due course. Thank you and goodbye.--Int Researcher (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ankit_Love_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1068823939"