Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEET 2026 Paper leak

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗
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 merge to 2026 NEET controversy. Or the other way around if preferred. There's no consensus on which way to do it, but merging is definitely preferred. Discussions about the eventual article title can be taken forward on its talk page if that is what is desired. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

NEET 2026 Paper leak

NEET 2026 Paper leak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to 2026 NEET controversy because these are the same topic. Natg 19 (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

This was attempted but there has been an edit war of people reverting the merge. Natg 19 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
That would have been worth including in the nomination statement. User:Wisher08, User:CharlieMehta, User:Abcmaxx and User:NavjotSR, why the heck are you wasting people's time by reverting redirects of duplicate pages??? Just help improve a consolidated merged page, not that nonsense. Reywas92Talk 03:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
@Reywas92: see my comment below. One of my undos was a mistake when trying to combat the edit warring and I immediately self-reverted. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am personally fine with merging the content in either direction, including moving content from “2026 NEET controversy” into “NEET 2026 Paper leak” if editors agree that it is the better title or structure. However, the discussion has become somewhat territorial, and some editors do not seem open to alternative merge options or willing to accept appropriate content from “2026 NEET controversy” into their article, which has led to repeated reversions and confusion. It is also important to note that although “2026 NEET controversy” may have been created later, it was properly reviewed through NPP, while “NEET 2026 Paper leak” did not go through the same review process. Charlie (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    Why did you create an article again on the same topic, why did you not improve the already published article? Cloverstudio (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    When I searched at the time, there was no separate 2026 NEET controversy article, so I created one on the precedent of the 2024 NEET controversy page. I was not aware that you had already created a similar article under a different title. Charlie (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    When I searched for 2026 NEET controversy on different devices, the Wikipedia page (2026 NEET Paper leak) was easily visible. The proof of this is that the article created earlier has 12000 views while the article created by Charlie Mehta has 3000 views.
    Charliemehta wants to waste my time. Cloverstudio (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Cloverstudio On 17 May, NEET 2026 Paper Leak was assessed by GPTZero as 79% AI-written, and as of today, it is still assessed as 56% AI-written, whereas 2026 NEET Controversy is assessed as 95% human-written. I honestly don’t know what else to say at this point about who is wasting whose time. Take care and find some peace, bro. Charlie (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article was created almost a week before 2026 NEET controversy was created. Those interested must work on NEET 2026 Paper leak. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 06:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    Agree with you Cloverstudio (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Cloverstudio. Charliemehta was supposed to improve the already existing article instead of creating one himself. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Already merged I already WP:BOLD merged it. The "paper leak" article was first however it was in much worse shape than the "controversy" article and was initially LLM written initially. The redirect should stay as it is, in line with 2024 NEET controversy article. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
    Looks like someone undid all the merging I did only to propose it again. Why? Abcmaxx (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
It is because you were supposed to merge the new article into the older one. Its a standard practice. Koshuri (あ!) 12:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Why is everyone hung up on "I was first!"? Yes ordinarily usually yes, but not when the old article has a) a title that is against precedent and b) is of lower quality Abcmaxx (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
@Abcmaxx This is becoming somewhat frustrating because some editor(s) appear to be focusing primarily on which article was created first. There was already a Draft:2026 NEET paper leak in draftspace, which had been moved back from mainspace on 12 May 2026 using the 2024 controversy precedent. Whatever title is ultimately retained, the main priority during the merge process should be to preserve and expand the most neutral content, as you did. However, I do not feel the same effort is being made by editors like Cloverstudio. I believe I created a genuinely neutral, human-written article, backed by a NPP review, but the process is becoming difficult due to competing approaches over article ownership and priority. Even if I had noticed the NEET 2026 Paper leak article earlier, I am not sure I would have been able to develop it in a neutral manner. Charlie (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale. The title should can be decided at RM and is irrelevant in this discussion. FaviFake (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
I disagree why do we need another discussion for something that was already merged but due to edit warring has been undone? Abcmaxx (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Others disagree with your merge, so we need to figure out these issues of what should should be merged where. Natg 19 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Right but this is a collosal waste of time and effort especially as this was something I already resolved. "I was first" are not valid reasons to oppose. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Support honestly, would have tag G15 NEET 2026 Paper leak if caught on early and directed the attention to the draft instead. While it is typically that the older article would be merged into, but the AI start is a 'meh, please do better next time'. In any case, the contributions of both versions would remain a record regardless of which direction the merge goes into. – robertsky (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge 2026 NEET controversy into NEET 2026 Paper leak because it was created first. I understand that a lot of editors wish to have more articles under their belt but this is not how it is done. If an article on a topic is already existing, then edit it instead of creating one. Agletarang (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose and merge 2026 NEET controversy into NEET 2026 Paper leak, given the established timeline of article creation. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merging one way or another: One place and article would be better and logicial. Both articles are deeply interwined. Which way to merge should be referenced from above discussion. Thanks, ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 07:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Support as the term "Controversy" is a more general term, allowing to fit in any other topics that don't really fit under "Paper leak" Teamgalacticcyrus (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
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.