Talk:Abhijeet Dipke

I have substantially revised the article in my draft: User:Rayhan Ahmed Tamim/Draft/Abhijeet Dipke.

This is not an attempt to recreate the previously deleted article. Rather, I have prepared a new draft that has been substantially rewritten and reorganized based on extensive coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, including Reuters, The New York Times, BBC News, ABC News, Associated Press, The Japan Times, Frontline, Hindustan Times, and The Times of India.

The lead has been rewritten, the article structure has been improved, the chronology has been clarified, and the biography and career sections have been expanded with additional independent sourcing. I have also removed or revised material where appropriate to better reflect the available sources and to maintain a neutral point of view.

I would appreciate any feedback on the draft, particularly regarding sourcing, neutrality, due weight, or article structure, before considering a request to move it to the main namespace. If there are any remaining concerns, I would be happy to address them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayhan Ahmed Tamim (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Responding to the recent recreation of this article and @Thilsebatti's message on my talk page:

Comparing old and new revisions, the text is roughly the same, just reworded from the previous LLM-generated version. The only difference is the addition of a "Protest movement" section – the Reuters article is a good source, but it is only one source, where WP:NBIO requires significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other. The other sources cited in that section only provide passing coverage of him in the context of the protest events.

Please explain how this new version meets notability requirements where the old one did not. Iiii I I I (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. At the time of creation the subject was only known for creating a political satire party. Now the scenario has changed. It is supported by many sources other than Reuters. Mentioning some sources. , , . Also as per WP:1E, if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. He was the main figure of the 2026 Janta Mantar Protests which has got international media coverage as well. So well I don't wanna engage in edit warring with some random IP's who might probably have some main ID's. And they have been personally harassing me as well. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) ~2026-41584-29 (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Multiple SPA editors? Can you prove it? So you wanna Salt this? On the basis of what? Thilsebatti (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I concur with Iiii I I I's first sentence. I think Abhijeet Dipke has definitely received more coverage since May, but restoring a slightly polished revision of a problematic old revision of the article is not ideal. Because the revision at the time of the AfD discussion's closure was tagged for possible AI use, I ran the text of the most recently restored revision through multiple AI checkers and the results were a mix of human and AI writing.

I think a new discussion is needed in regard to whether or not recent coverage by reliable sources is sufficient for notability, because there was consensus that previous coverage was not sufficient (in the May revision that keeps getting restored with few changes). Yue🌙 (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

What if me or someone else create a new version entirely different from the previous? IMO the subject indeed meets GNG. Multiple editors including Dsrprj, EduExplorer47 and XYZ 250706 are in favour of restoring the article to mainspace. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The AfD concluded with a decision to merge this article. You will need to head to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you want to keep this article. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to start the deletion review process but also have a good draft with multiple really strong sources focusing on this person that would show why this person could be notable so you can reference that in the DR. Ravensfire (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The word "Genlund" in the citation hyperlink should be "GenZ". This is obviously the work of a troll either in the employ of Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janta Party or of a troll sympathetic to them. To the uninitiated, he word "lund" means penis, or simply dick, in Hindi. ~2026-41631-79 (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Correction: "the" word, not "he" word. ~2026-41631-79 (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@EarthDude: Hello, I'm notifying you that this article has been recreated and that you may start a new AfD if you wish this page to be turned into a redirect again. Quoting my last edit summary: the content is different and a good-faith attempt to overcome the reason for not having a standalone article has been made; this counts as a recreation—follow WP:BLAR: this is a contested BLAR, so do not re-redirect; if contesting this edit, start a new AfD.—Alalch E. 19:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Ping @Thilsebatti as well. —Alalch E. 19:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Articles who were made redirects following AfDs do not fall under BLAR. Please stop edit warring and either open a new discussion in this talk page over how this new content differs from the version which was merged, or discuss this at this article's DRV entry which is currently ongoing. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Either that or you could create a draft and have it go through the usual AfC process, as @Ravensfire proposed. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I see that Draft:Abhijeet Dipke already exists, which hasn't been edited since June. You could simply work on that. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Please do not think you are permitted to enforce your blanking-and-redirecting over objections, contrary to WP:BLAR. I don't need a draft, I review drafts. The content at this page is superior to the draft you are pointing to. And, finally. drafts are an optional mechanism entirely. You have given incorrect advice to Thilsebatti above causing a significant confusion. It was not that Thilsebatti needed to start a deletion review, it is that you had to start an AfD for the new version of the article. You should-self revert, and start an AfD. —Alalch E. 06:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

An AfD has already occurred over this article and it concluded with a merge. Whether a "new version" of the article satisfies the issues for which this article was originally merged depends on what the community thinks, not what you personally believe in. You being a reviewer is irrelevant if you refuse to engage in a discussion and resort to edit warring. — EarthDude (Talk) 06:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi EarthDude. I opened the DRV after your advice. It was only after when OwenX said that I realised I did something wrong, that it was not the right venue. May be I should have waited for atleast 24 hours more to avoid WP:3RR and act bold. Actually it was not the confusion, but mostly emotion. I took it personal because some random IP came and accused me indirectly for UPE and socking which felt personal. I should have acted with wikiquette and not out of emotion. Thanks Alalch E. for trying to show my good faith. Personally I believe the subject meets GNG and should have a seperate standalone article. Multiple editors are telling several opinions about to how to take this forward. Also to all the editors involved, I would like to mention that there was no LLM usage in the latest revision which is a complete false claim. AI detector is showing zero percent of AI usgae. Can someone please give a guidance here how to correctly proceed here because I feel this like a boobytrap situation? Thilsebatti (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I have substantially revised and expanded the draft at User:Rayhan Ahmed Tamim/Draft/Abhijeet Dipke following the concerns raised in the recent discussion. The new draft is not simply a reworded version of the previously merged article. In particular, I have substantially expanded the article's coverage of Dipke's role in the 2026 Jantar Mantar protest movement and incorporated more recent independent reporting that was not available during the earlier deletion discussion. The revised draft now relies on substantial coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources, including Reuters, BBC News, The New York Times, ABC News, The Japan Times, The Straits Times, Bloomberg, CNN, Al Jazeera, Associated Press, Frontline, Hindustan Times, The Indian Express and The Times of India, among others. The draft has also been reorganised to distinguish between: Dipke's earlier career and political communications work; the formation and development of the Cockroach Janta Party; and his subsequent role in the 2026 Jantar Mantar protest movement. I am not asking editors to accept the article simply because the subject has received increased media attention. Rather, I would appreciate an independent assessment of whether the new and substantially expanded body of secondary coverage now establishes notability under the General notability guideline, particularly in light of the significant coverage published after the earlier AfD discussion. Draft: User:Rayhan Ahmed Tamim/Draft/Abhijeet Dipke I would welcome any comments regarding notability, sourcing, neutrality, due weight, or whether further changes are needed before the draft is submitted through Articles for Creation. Thank you. Rayhan Ahmed Tamim (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)