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. After disregarding all the puppetry, recruited votes, and other nonsense (this is the first AfD I can remember where oversight had to step in), this came down to leaning towards delete. In the end, the detailed analysis by Fyddlestix is what swayed me. Jbhunley (JBH) made a cogent argument that if you were to go back in time, you could find a historical version of this article which was worth keeping. I give a lot of weight to people who change their minds in the middle of a discussion, because that shows they are actually thinking about the issues with an open mind, not just defending a position. But, the argument by Fyddlestix that even this historical version does not meet our requirements was persuasive, leading me to a delete consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Love[edit]

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)

I have severe doubts about the notability of the subject. The claims to notability are either:

To boot, we have numerous fantastical claims, like being "His claim to the thrones of the Kingdoms of Jammu-Kashmir and Ladakh comes from being the last of the House of Dogra not under obligation to serve or recive benifit from the Republic of India." [sic] The subject himself has clearly edited the article to a large extent, given such claims and self-created photographs.

In short, this article is nothing but a poorly written advertisement. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his music video is real. But still: after trying to follow those sources, I have to concur. Delete. DS (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My Dear Magog the Ogre, Thank for bringing up your concerns regarding the article. Though I believe that in this case you need not have concern.
There are I believe many articles and citation on the subject from different and independent sources. Some of these are even catalogued a website of the subject: http://www.ankitlove.org/nick-cannon/
–Here is a list of a just a few citations in the article itself of independent nature that pertain directly to the subject
Dastur-Arsiwala, Nicole (7 April 2013). "Beethoven with a Touch of Disco". Daily News and Analysis (Diligent Media Corporation). retrieved 30 June 2013.
http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epaperimages//ahmedabad//07042013//07042013-md-jaipur-7.pdf
Newstead, Sophie-Jane (23 November 2013). "Interview: ANKIT LOVE Editor-In-Chief of new Science / Fashion publication Mist Magazine". :Joyzine. Retrieved 21 January 2014.
Anderson, Emily (1 April 2013). "How I got here (page 98)". Spirit & Destiny (Yellow News).
–Apart from his own achievements the subject is also the son of a public and influential political and legal figure in India Kunwar Bhim Singh, and thus an ancestor of General Zorwar Singh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorawar_Singh_Kahluria of the Dogra Rajput dynasty, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogra_dynasty there are in links to these pages in the subject’s article too and their very own citations that support the notability of that history.
–Further, fantastical would be perhaps more a statement of opinion to some extent, and the claims maybe numerous but there are none the less made as claims. No where in the article does it suggest that they are anything other then just that claims, based of course on history, heritage and law, while these may not be so well known in the west as yet, there are none the less notable.
Further such claims are in fact common place and appropriate on wikipedia, are you aware of these pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_pretenders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretender
I thank for your time, and hope you may be able to see the points I have put forward. All the best. योजनबुद्ध (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Davey thank you for your guidance, it's greatly appreciated! :) –I would also like to add another point for keeping the article. The subject could also be considered notable based on being the founder of two publications in the United Kingdom. –He was co-founder and creative advisor of BRIC Magazine an internationally distributed in print quarterly http://bricmagazine.co.uk –And he was founding editor-in-chief of the digital MIST magazine https://facebook.com/MistOnlineMag –Another independent source: http://www.wildculture.com/article/making-science-sexy/1291 — Preceding unsigned comment added by योजनबुद्ध (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
–In addition some of the reasons calling for deletion are based on accusations of vanity and “non-neutral” point of view, I believe the accusations themselves are not justified, I find the article of reasonable and encyclopaedic quality (though do bear in mind for parts of it I was the editor). Yet you will still find that the guidelines Articles for deletion#How_to_contribute clearly states this in CAPS and more, "The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion..." Even wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has commented on this problem. –Further I would like to add I have now painstakingly researched & updated the citations, and removed a few expired links. Yes, upon learning of the nature of these claims, I wanted to investigate deeper into veracity of the matter myself, and found the subject in London and personally took these photos. They are indeed taken by me, but they are not retouched and are of official legal passport documents with oral permission from the subject to release in public domain. If required, I can also obtain permission via email for confirmation of their release. Indeed, I too find these claims remarkable in nature, but lets us remember that quote from the Heritage Dictionary the 1st citation on notability of the subject "worthy of note or notice; remarkable." Once again I thank you for your time and deliberation. योजनबुद्ध (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. The events he has listed are verifiable. Low circulation of some sources doesn't make them untrue. That implies that only popular sources count. This is not how information works.
2. It is a fact that he claims to be Buddha or these titles. CLAIMS is the key word here. Whether or not you believe he is Buddha, you cannot prove that he is NOT and it is a FACT that he claims it. We don't have discussions on whether God is THE God in a factual framework.
3. To be frank, I am a former teacher of his at ACS. I have known him for 14 years and stayed in contact. These events are true, not that testimonials are reasons to keep an article. But based on logic, there is no logical reason to take this down. He has cited his sources on the events that are verifiable by nature and the word choices (such as claims) make the unverifiable ones true in their representation. This is a factual representation of who he is. Maybe you don't like the writing style of this, but it has nothing to do with the verifiability of it all. That is the goal of Wikipedia. Isn't it?
Again, this fits the guidelines of Wikipedia. There is no reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbowiewulf (talk • contribs) 22:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) — Mcbowiewulf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • CommentUser:Mcbowiewulf Welcome to Wikipedia! Congratulations on your very first edit! JBH (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear esteemed Editors, once again thank you for bringing up concerns, I really do appreciate and value them and your time and efforts, but please allow me to reassure you that there is actually no need for concern. —I don’t feel it’s an advertisement as the subject has given away all his intellectual property and copyright, any one can reuse it with out paying a fee, you can see that declaration here: http://www.ankitlove.org/foundation/about/ —Some would even say it may this may bring ridicule to the subject. —Perhaps its the claim to buddhahood that may bother the most, but once again on wikipedia this is also common, only after this was added was the article put up for deletion it had been here for years before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddha_claimants —By my check of the 109 sources at the moment in this article 85 directly focus on Love, 11 focus on works made by Love, 5 focus on his family or associates, 19 give sourcing for background and happenings concerning Love’s life and places and events. Further many of the sources are independent thrid-party including DNA India perhaps not known in the West but a respected broadsheet in India with readership of approx. 500,000. Spirit & Destiny magazine is published by Bauer in the UK and has circulation of approx. 50,000. And of course MTV and VH1 are indeed well known. I have added a few links to older articles that have been archived on the the subject’s Foundation website, only as they were dead links now, things expire faster on the internet, so I think it’s unfair to use that as fuel for deletion. —I leave you with 3 points and I commend your efforts in keeping wiki a noble and safe place for knowledge, and pray you will see the light, and always wish you the best in your search for knowledge without prejudice. 1.)Articles for Deletion "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.” 2.) notability of the subject " "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.” 3.) Jimmy Wales, co-founder of wikipedia, once said, "it is extremely discourteous without absolute positive proof to speculate that the author of some non-notable biography is the subject himself or herself. Yes, it is often true, but there is zero gain to us from assuming this rather than assuming the opposite." योजनबुद्ध (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Things to watchout योजनबुद्ध is malicious person who is after Ankit love for some reasons, He has compromised love's account and uploaded private material on Wikipedia . He is totally involved in illegal criminal activities thus he should prosecuted and banned from this site. --Kindguru (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)— Kindguru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment - My dear Kindguru, these is a very strong accusations indeed. I wonder about where your fears originate from. The subject is well aware of these edits, and even sent his blessing by email and has sent the photos to be uploaded releasing them in the public domain. I suppose he believes in his claims and wants them to be examined, after all the subject made the claims. I believe he would be happy were his page kept as such too. I pray there would be less fear and prejudice in the discussion of knowledge here and that it may be lighter in tone and feel, though I do understand where you were coming from and appreciate your concerns. There is indeed a great deal of fear of the truth in this day and age of reason. Here are a couple screenshots of what was sent by the subject which I would judge would signify approval of the edits thus far, even though by wiki standards the subjects approval is not required so long as there is a source. 1.) http://snag.gy/iKfVR.jpg 2.) http://snag.gy/FNL69.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by योजनबुद्ध (talk • contribs) 11:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note that those screen grabs are from a .org address. The original page, before your changes, show a .com address. JBH (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dear JBH, I feel it's very unfair to revert these edits, so I have reverted them back, a lot of work and sourcing has been put it to this now. Please the judgment of this page is on Friday. So lets wait till the judgement date and not rush to conclusions trying to erase the history please, I implore and request for us all to wait till Friday when the 7 days shall expire, and proper judgement can be given. I am not sure about what you mean about .org and .com you will find now the official Ankit Love Foundation website i now hosted at www.ankitlove.org योजनबुद्ध (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just spent some time going through the sources on the article, and there is a lot less there than there initially appeared to be. The article claimed that Love had directed a film that premiered at Cannes, for example, but the only evidence of that (other than love's own statements/promotional material) was this IMDB Listing. You'd think if the film had actually played at Cannes I'd be able to confirm that with a more reliable source, but I can't find anything else that isn't promotional material or a puff-piece interview with Love. The article also claimed that he had a "hit" single with Beethoven Burst - but the only valid "charting" of the single that I can find is its appearance (at number 28) on this this FMBQ chart, which I'm not sure meets the criteria laid out in WP:CHART, let alone makes him notable. The claim to a VH1 or an MTV charting seems to have been based on it being the most-viewed video on the MTV Hive website for a single day or week (it's unclear which). The article suggested that he was a race-car driver, but the sources show he was competing at an amateur/entry level. It claims that he has won awards at a number of film festivals, but those festivals are small ones which, on closer inspection, seem to give out the same awards to numerous competitors in the same category/year (ie, it looks like most everyone gets an award at these festivals). This one even advertises itself as an "IMDB qualifying festival," suggesting that it exists for marketing purposes more than anything else.
As far as the GNG goes, these are the closest things to reliable, third party sources that I could find in the article: article one, two,three, four (see page 29), and five. I know they look flashy and well produced, but with the possible exception of the dna india article (number two), these all look like paid/promotional pieces if you look closely. There's no legit newspaper or magazine coverage of this guy, and most of the other sources in the article can either be traced back to his own statements, or seem to be obvious advertising.
I've already removed some of the most misleading and unsourced information from the article (you can check the history if you're curious) but the more I look at this guy the more I think we're looking at someone whose put in an a lot of effort and spent a lot of money to make themselves look notable, when in reality there's very little here to justify having a wiki article about him.Fyddlestix (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work Fyddlestix. I've removed two other claims (see the talk page). This looks as solid as a house of cards. --NeilN talk to me 01:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: योजनबुद्ध The things you edited on the Wikipedia page are based on a compromised Linkedin page, Emails screenshots produced are obviously fake. Its an strong accusation but you probably accessed his personal account illegally . Your quite an educated guy why you want to waste your time in defaming a renowned person. Its totally unclear what has interested you to edit his page as i can see you haven't edited any other pages. peace :).

Strong Keep: He is renowned artist. He has written beautiful songs such as Beethoven burst, people are my favorite thing, spill the milky way. There are thousands of references about the artists on google such as itunes, amazon, rhapsody etc. He has Produced movies, Doing non-profit charity work. Worth Keeping. The article should be reverted back to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ankit_Love&oldid=631020660. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindguru (talk • contribs) 08:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC) — Kindguru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment None of the sources you mention are reliable sources. To be a valid source for notability purposes on Wikipedia a source must be an independent third party source - completely unconnected to the subject - PR releases or advertorials, passing mentions, blogs or other user generated content, non-notable awards, all are not acceptable. Based on that there are no sources to support even that version. If the article is kept it will likely be stubbed. All of the sources have turned out to be part of a PR campaign. The only reason I have not changed my !vote to 'Delete' again is he has one song that on a chart that might let him pass WP:MUSICBIO. It looks like this guy spent a lot of time and money to raise his profile but the only was I see him qualifying for an article is on a technicality. Please read the blue links above as well as our policies on verifiability and general notability guidelines to see what qualifies for a Wikipedia article. JBH (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry if you've already noticed this Aerospeed, but I want to make sure. I don't fully understand how the article on Rain Elwood was created here (it looks like a move from Egija Zviedre, only that page has no history) but anyway, I think it's worth noting that the creator of both pages is currently blocked as a sock of योजनबुद्ध, who was heavily involved in this discussion and the person most responsible for the mess that this article was in before the deletion discussion started. The same user (Look4Light) also created the article under discussion.
I'm fine if this comes down on the "keep" side but I hope some of y'all will help me keep an eye on the page as someone seems very determined to puff this guy up. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice.
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.
  1. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Ankit-Love/e/B00GFZYUJQ
  2. ^ http://www.mistmag.com/letter-from-the-editor
Category