Deletion of Ankit Love (2nd nomination)

Comment: I have clearly stated on the Talk:Ankit_Love|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  possibly on nationalistic conditioning. Would
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: 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  (see edit history on Ankit Love and the content he has written, presumed  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:SPA||WP:NPOV||WP:COI||WP:OWN)

Comment: per nom and comments above as lacking sufficient |reliable sources to establish notability. Many mentions in blogs and internet news posts do not add up to notability for Wikipedia's purposes, though they may support notoriety. Much work was done on this article, but subject still lacks sufficient ndependent|independent sources for true notability. As a side note, the One Love Party article, the other creation of the SPA, is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Love Party|nominated for deletion. Same issues there. The article on his father, Bhim Singh (politician)|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:I)

Comment: 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  (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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA||WP:COI||WP:RS||WP:SECONDARY||WP:GNG||WP:SALT)

Comment: 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 One Love Party (if that's not also deleted), as per . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: 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 - |notability, MUSIC|notability (music) - and would recommend you read them. You really must understand why Love is not notable before creating more articles. I would also advise you leave this AfD alone now so other EUTRAL|neutral editors can weigh in on the matter. Your opinion on this has been noted extensively
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NMUSIC||WP:NEUTRAL)

Comment: Agreed. A  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT)

Comment: 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  and . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: if this closes as delete please  the title. In this person ever becomes notable then going through  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT||WP:AFC)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Nothing here is a compelling claim of notability, the sources are not substantively ''about'' him in the manner necessary to pass , the only new thing that keeps this from being a straight G4 speedy still isn't actually a claim of notability that gets a person over the bar in and of itself, and it's worth noting that the article was created by an  who has never made a single non-Love related edit as far as I can tell
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SPA)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SNOW||WP:NPOV||WP:1E)

Comment: 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 Talk:Ankit_Love#Deletion_of_Security_Concerns|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  and , 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN||WP:NPOV||WP:COI||WP:SPA)