Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Love (2nd nomination)
This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 July 20. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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)
Ankit Love
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 Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
The article is well sourced but the coverage is wholly insignificant failing the basic
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly Talk to my owner:Online 23:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 00:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 00:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 00:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism -related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts -related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History -related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough coverage in ]
- Comment: I would hardly say making news internationally in relation to a local election in regards to the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir since the United Nations Security Council Resolution 47, 1948 that is "terror-plagued" from the ongoing insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir that correlates with the CIA's Operation Cyclone in neighbouring Afghanistan is "normal campaign coverage." Especially considering that the Kashmir conflict is a "conflict the world has chosen to ignore," according to author Salman Rushdie.--Int Researcher (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Delete: Agree entirely with the nominator. There is zero evidence to demonstrate that Ankit Love has any notability whatsoever, and the article is written with an obvious conflict of interest. I support the notion that the article fails WP:POLITICIAN. I also removed his claim to being the head of the House of Dogra, as I could not find any reliable sources to back up such a claim, which has no merit to begin with. Cyanhat (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)]
- Comment The last AfD proposal submitted about Ankit Love was plagued with a significant amount of presumed sockpuppetry and editors with insignificant contributions. Be on the lookout for such activity in this AfD discussion to ensure that we can come to a valid, fair and just consensus. Cyanhat (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Just realized that the nominator already wrote about the sockpuppetry and I had a lapse of memory. That being said, this point needs to be emphasized with great weight.Cyanhat (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per others above. An SPA has put a lot of work into the article -- some of it good, some of it failing NPOV -- but there's just not enough there. His political candidacies can be covered on the appropriate election articles or under WP:NPOL. There may be other material, like that around his Kashmir claims, that could usefully go to Bhim Singh (politician) (his father). But an article of his own, not yet. Bondegezou (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)]
- Delete per nom and comments above as lacking sufficient independent sources for true notability. As a side note, the One Love Party article, the other creation of the SPA, is also nominated for deletion. Same issues there. The article on his father, Bhim Singh, is a good contrast to illustrate the differences between notoriety and notability in the context of Wikipedia's standards. Perhaps some mention of Mr. Love belongs in that article, as per another comment above. Geoff | Who, me? 15:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)]
- Delete - At first glance this person may look notable, but when you look at the sources carefully it becomes clear that it's an awful lot of passing mentions, self-promotion, and exaggeration. Someone appears to have gone to a lot of trouble to try to make Mr. Love famous, but there's really not much here, certainly not enough to make him notable. The only thing that has changed since the last AFD is his long-shot mayoral candidacy, which does not make him notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)]
- Delete. Nothing here is a compelling claim of notability, the sources are not substantively about him in the manner necessary to pass WP:SPA who has never made a single non-Love related edit as far as I can tell. Bearcat (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)]
- Comment: "Yet there is no denying that Love is Dogra royal," is a quote from the source TopYaps that's worth considering in regards to Love's claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Int Researcher (talk • contribs) 12:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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 WP:ROYALTY--Int Researcher (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)]
- 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 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
- Keep Subject after contesting Mayor of London elections is now contesting MP by-election from Tooting on June 16, 2016. He is feature of these TV news broadcasts: London Live TV, ITV News, Patrika Rajasthan TV. He is feature of these published articles in Huck Magazine, front page Jammu and Kashmir Newspoint, DAZED magazine, Vice magazine, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Get West London news 1, Get West London news 2, Get West London news 3, Hackney Gazette, Kashmir Life, CityAm, Huff Post, DNA 1, DNA 2, DNA 3, TopYaps, National Student, Gulf News, Catch News,Londonist, Newsgram, Pakistan Christian Post. He is feature of these video reports Newsvity, Kingston Courier Paolo Zeriali, and on RaW 1251AM Radio, has notable mentions in Newsweek, Time Out and the Guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Int Researcher (talk • contribs) 02:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC) — Int Researcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.]
Unproductive arguments and accusations |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- 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 N4 (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)]
- 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
- Reply to N4 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)]
- Reply to 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 I'm going to assume that you agree Love is not notable as per the first three bullet points of my nomination (assume good faithand set aside the political line in favour of the royal line of enquiry that appears to be your argument here.
- Reply I'm going to assume that you agree Love is not notable as per the first three bullet points of my nomination (
- 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 N4 (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)]
- 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
- Reply to N4 Love is also notable for his music. He had his music video "Beethoven Burst" which was published on MTV and VH1 in the USA in 2011, the story was a published secondary source in 2012 in print in the Siddharth Mallya. His music facebook page also has 160,000 fans. So Love is interesting and notable for his music too.--Int Researcher (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)]
- Reply Oooh, okay. This I did not expect. It's blatantly clear that you do not understand how notability works. I'm going to leave these two links here - N4 (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)]
- Reply to N4 Love is also notable for his music. He had his music video "Beethoven Burst" which was published on MTV and VH1 in the USA in 2011, the story was a published secondary source in 2012 in print in the
- Reply to N4 Yet there is also Love's short film Whale! that has received over 1 million views on youtube was premiered at the Cannes Film Festival. Along with his other media roles as editor-in-chief of a science and fashion publication that he was featured for in the Journal of Wild and Culture in 2013 "A brand new magazine has arrived to combine cutting-edge science with high-end fashion. Katherine Templar Lewis speaks to Ankit Love, the brains behind Mist magazine." and is featured in Rare Curation: "Ankit Love is the modern creative chameleon. We speak to the editor about his innovative new magazine MIST, to talk about all things science, fashion and technology in the modern digital age revolution." He also has mention as co-founder of BRIC magazine in this article on the Good Web Guide and on the masthead of the magazine on it's first issue. So Ankit Love is clearly notable for his creative ventures as well as his political activities that have plenty of published secondary sources. You state that "It's blatantly clear that you do not understand how notability works." are you sure you understand notability? Can you also elaborate how exactly is neutrality that maybe questionable, and perhaps you should not have moved the order of my comments before.--Int Researcher (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)]
- Reply to N4 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 to N4
Unproductive arguments and accusations |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Cyanhat - Thanks for letting us know about the mistake. No worries; we all make them! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- FMQB is not an 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 "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 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 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 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 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 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 toN4 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)]- 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 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.
- 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
- Note to closer if this closes as delete please 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)]
- 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)]
- Comment - Agreed. A
- Delete - Per the nominator and the reasons cited above. The page was definitely created and expanded by 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)]
Struck !vote |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I'm striking out this vote, as it is obviously made by a 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)]
- Yes even I agree with WP:GNG--Int Researcher (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)]
- Yes even I agree with
- I'm striking out this vote, as it is obviously made by a
- 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)]
- 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)
Struck !vote |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Redacting vote. Obviously not here to contribute productively to this discussion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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 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)]
- Comment this user cannot be Ankit Love, this must be a fake. Surely it's in Ankit Love's interest to have an article on Wikipedia.--Int Researcher (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and Salt – At least I enjoyed reading the passionate discussion — JFG talk 17:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
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. |
|
- Delete - Subject's very poor showing in the mayoral election means he fails 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)]
- 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)
- — 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)
- 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)
- Comment I find it most unfair that User:N4 would care to look into it this to make sure it is with in wikipedia policy. Why cover up anything? You could cross it out as User:Oshwah had done before? Kind Regards,--Int Researcher (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)]
- 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)
- 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)]
- 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)
- 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)]
- 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)
- What does this have to do with the
- 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)
- 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
- Notice regarding N4 (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)]
- 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)]
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 to
- 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)
- Delete as per Nom and as per closing administrator on previous AFD and salt.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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).
- A person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just because of individual users' 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)]
- A person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just because of individual users'
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.