Talk:NEET 2026 Paper leak
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 May 2026. The result of the discussion was merge. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work.
SatnaamIN (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
LLM tag
@~2026-28866-53:, can you please explain your reasoning for adding a tag to the article for AI-generated writing? I do not see any telltale signs and the article is too short to make a definitive judgement. Also pinging @Cloverstudio who wrote the bulk of the article and NPP reviewer @SaTnamZIN who approved it for mainspace. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Chorchapu I can see that after my review, the article was heavily modified or re-written. As the NPR, my job was to do a BEFORE and verify the claims with citations. Sadly, we can't detect LLM use with human eyes. We need to use grammarly kinda which are also AI tool. I reviewed the page per NPP rule. And yes by doing that I missed the AI check as it's not in the WP:HOUR. SatnaamIN (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- I think the article has been cleaned up, and now it may be okay. But this version of the article did look a little bit like AI-generated, with the bullet points and odd capitalization. Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- I do see where the TA was coming from with that diff. But now it looks fine. Do you think the orange tag should be removed? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- I tried to clean up the article after I saw it had been nominated for ITN. It didn't occur to me that it might have been AI-generated − I just thought it was just poorly drafted − but it may well have been. Either way, I would argue that it no longer looks AI-generated. Baldwin de Toeni (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Split proposal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose splittingthis article. see main page Speranț (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge into 2024 NEET controversy, and rename 2024 NEET controversy to NEET controversy TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose merge or split Currently I believe, judging by the length of the article, it is too short to be split into two articles. Also, the 2024 and the 2026 one are separate incidents, and I believe should thus remain as different articles TNM101 (chat) 15:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose merge and split - This topic is notable on its own. Protests dont need a separate article. Koshuri (あ!) 15:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Post-closure
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- @Abcmaxx: If you want to change the title then open a request for it. See WP:RM. Creating a new article on the same topic is not the way to go. Koshuri (あ!) 15:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Koshuri Sultan: I didn’t create a new article, the other one already existed and was in much better shape than this one. I merely merged this duplicate into the other article. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- "the other one already existed" only if you believe 17 May came before 12 May. Its not true though, look it up. NavjotSR (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- Please discuss before reverting each other's changes. Where's all the content from this article gone now ? It's getting confusing at this point TNM101 (chat) 17:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- @NavjotSR It does not matter which article was created first. The key point is which article follows the proper conventions suggested by Robertsky in edit summary of this draft and is subsequently reviewed by CostalCal once created. I don't want to get involved in blanking this particular page, but I would request that the 2026 NEET controversy not be blanked and replaced with a low-quality draft. Charlie (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- Please discuss before reverting each other's changes. Where's all the content from this article gone now ? It's getting confusing at this point TNM101 (chat) 17:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- "the other one already existed" only if you believe 17 May came before 12 May. Its not true though, look it up. NavjotSR (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Koshuri Sultan: I didn’t create a new article, the other one already existed and was in much better shape than this one. I merely merged this duplicate into the other article. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Regardless of which article was created first, there is no need to have 2 duplicate articles. One of these needs to be merged into the other. I would agree that what matters is which article is in better shape right now. Natg 19 (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- Due to the edit warring at both articles, I have opened a formal merge discussion here. Natg 19 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)