Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by योजनबुद्ध (talk | contribs) at 14:14, 20 February 2015 (Speedy Keep points for the subject and article.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ankit Love

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:

• Not in the source at all.
• Backed by dead links.
• Backed by non-reliable sources.
• A select few appear in a few publications.

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." 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)

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)

• Speedy Keep

My Dear Magog the Ogre, Thank for bringing up your concerns regarding the article. It’s good to know that wikipedia is place of great minds working together too keep the knowledge bright and alight, thats why really really like wikipedia, a place of discussion and true justice. I believe though that in this case you need not have concern. As the article and subject I believe are indeed notable and have merit. Please allow to cordially explain. The subject is I feel within the notability criteria of wikipedia and so are the claims based on the following, Yes I know the following is long, but claims and information of this nature can seldom be brief. Here we go.

1.)"I have severe doubts about the notability of the subject." Can you please clarify on what specific grounds you may feel the subject is not a notable addition? After all I believe by the guidelines “determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.” Further, "common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.” There are I believe many articles on the subject from different and independent sources. Some of these are even catalogued on a website pertaining to subject: http://www.ankitlove.org/nick-cannon/

Here is a list of a just a few citations of independent nature that pertain 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. Newstead, Sophie-Jane (23 November 2013). "Interview: ANKIT LOVE Editor-In-Chief of new Science / Fashion publication Mist Magazine". Joyzine. Retrieved 21 January 2014. Lauziniece, Laura (21 February 2012). "Latviešu Modele – MTV klipa zvaigzne (Latvian Model – star of MTV video) (page 15)". Privātā Dzīve (Santa). 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 of the Dogra Rajput dynasty, there are in links to these pages and their very own citations that support the notability of that history.

The subject is indeed founder of a foundation to support humanitarian and scientific causes it's registration number is 8926971 as listed at the bottom of the foundation's website: http://ankitlove.org And you can search for it here as it appears in the search of the Companies House https://www.gov.uk/get-information-about-a-company

2.)"Backed by dead links." This is now an older article that has been around for a few years since around 2012 I believe, some of the links do not survive so long on the internet unfortunately, though the last retrieved dates are documented. But still many of the link do work fine indeed, I don’t think links simply dying out is a fair assessment of speedy deletion when there are also sources that have been in print including the DNA newspaper of India, the PDF spread of which can be read, and also the fact the subject co-founded a in print magazine called BRIC magazine http://bricmagazine.co.uk and further he was the founding Editor-in-Chief of the digital magazine Mist http://mistmag.com

Further links go to his music video on MTV and VH1 http://www.vh1.com/video/ankit-love/717077/beethoven-burst.jhtml (only works in the USA as that's the VH1 franchise the video was on)

All these would indeed be points of notability I believe. Perhaps the subject is exceptional or unusual or even unbelievable to most but this is not criteria against notability, nor is it cause for speed deletion for an article that has been on wikipedia for years.

3.) "Not in the source at all." I believe much of the article is appropriately sourced. Do you have exact reference to what is not sourced, perhaps citations need or something similar would have been the more apporipirate first step as opposed to rushing to speed deletion of this subject. However I believe that there is this guideline to consider too: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.”

4.)"Backed by non-reliable sources." Could specify which sources you feel are non-reilble and as to which policy that pertains please?

5.)"A select few appear in a few publications." I believe that even if a few do appear in publication and that of the family of the subject too, then that would weigh in the favour of notability.

6.)"To boot, we have numerous fantastical claims..." My dear Administrator first of all indeed there were errors of standard spellings in that sentence that have been now corrected, I appreciate you bringing them to attention.

However, fantastical would be perhaps your opinion, can you please justify what you source or history you reference to label the claims as fantastical? They maybe numerous if that is the history and heritage, well that how it is. Perhaps judgement on fantastical is more relative to individuals, fantastical to one maybe normal to another. And so perhaps this is not the most appropriate course to ascertain the facts and histories that subject makes his claims upon. And so perhaps no the appropriate basis to judge notability by.

As the claims I believe are based on real recorded history one that may not be so well known or popular in the West, but history it is none the less and which is indeed in part covered on Misplaced Pages already for example pages on the subjects: Father, Kunwar Bhim Singh https://en.wikipedia.org/Bhim_Singh_(politician) His ancestor, General Zorwar Singh https://en.wikipedia.org/Zorawar_Singh_Kahluria And his hence clan, the Dogra Dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/Dogra_dynasty All already on wikipedia. It’s the history of the region and the subject is a part of it. The subject did not choose his history, nor the laws that governed him.

And there are a complex plethora of legal points that have plagued the region of northern India for decades. Have you my dear Magog clearly studied and understand the implications and history of Article 370? There is actually a wikipedia page on the subject to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/Article_370

And there is also the Instrument of Accession and it's circumstances to review also now on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/Instrument_of_Accession_(Jammu_and_Kashmir)

You see the subject of the article has person and direct relation to all of these happenings through clearly his fathers side, and so I believe the subject's case indeed has notable inclusion of encyclopaedic nature.

Once again the article is clear to point to these are “claims,” made by the claimant and presented as such. No where in the article is it written that anybody has confirmed such claim. But it is a claim of historical and legal value none the less, based on heritage, law and history though yet not histories so so well known in the West. But this should not automatically classify the article for speedy deletion. After all this is perhaps one of the purposes of wikipedia to bring to light such unknown and notable subjects.

Further there are many articles on claimants and Pretenders to the thrones on wikipedia already based on heritage and history and dynasty. There may even be more then one claimant to any one throne in matters as such, this once again I believe is not grounds against notability. In fact, the claims, histories and legal points may add more notability to the subject for encyclopaedic inclusion.

Please also see this link to many current claimants and pretenders on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_current_pretenders https://en.wikipedia.org/Pretender

Perhaps all pretenders and claimants can be classified as somewhat fantastical by people who don't believe in their claims, but this is not I believe criteria in itself criteria for speedy deletion, or lack of notability. In fact this is now a article in progress to which appropriate points or counter claims should be added to. To potentially even discredit the claims and histories referenced by the claimant as long as they can be sourced.

7.)"In short, this article is nothing but a poorly written advertisement."

Perhaps the article seems weighed in the positive spectrum in relation to the subject in your views my Dear Magog, but as with all wikipeida articles they are works in progress and if an when the research is done to bring out the negatives of the subject well then they must be added to the article as well. But till then the statement you have made is more an opinion then fact, of course you are entitled to opinion and it can be the root to search for facts of course. But not necessarily the right criteria for speedy deletion.

In fact it would appear that the article does seem to be written with an encyclopaedic tone. Further a lack of negative criticism does not in it self constitute a lack of notability, or even just criteria for speedy deletion for that matter.

So I feel based on articles, media exposure, family histories here, documents and history of the region the article and subject are indeed notable. And should be kept, for the benefit of wikipedia and it's wealth and quest for knowledge and as support of potentially great untold histories of our world.

While I can see from your perspective that you feel the claims in the article to be fantastical there is still no suggestion that they are not based on substantial history, law and heritage. And fantastical can still mean true or certainly up for debate. And then they are of course indeed notable. If any counter claim exists or their is any criticism to the claim then of course this should be added to the article once found, this would make a lot more sense then to blindly delete it based potentially on prejudices and opinions without the proper and deep research and understanding these issues call for.

I thank for your time, and hope you may be able to see the points I have put forward. All the best. --योजनबुद्ध (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates