Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, Lynch44, left the following feedback:
Hello, GourabIND!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Lynch4411:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, Lynch44, left the following feedback:
provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles;
are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.
Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:India Global Review logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. Feel free to further improve your accepted article.
Future articles
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.
Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.
I have a concern about the current version of the article. Compared with the earlier accepted version, it appears to give substantially more emphasis to Dipke's activities and achievements, while removing the section on the controversy surrounding his educational qualifications. I believe the article should present significant coverage from reliable independent sources in a balanced and neutral way. If the educational-qualification controversy is sufficiently covered by reliable sources, I think it should be represented in the article, while also including Dipke's response to the allegations.
I also have concerns about the way the claims of threats and attacks are presented. The available reporting appears to be based primarily on Dipke's own allegations, without evidence of an independent investigation or independent verification. For a biography of a living person, such claims should be clearly attributed and should not be presented as established facts unless supported by reliable independent sources. If these claims are retained, I think the wording should make their status as allegations clear.
I am not suggesting that my previous version should simply be restored. I would prefer that the article be revised collaboratively into a neutral, well-sourced version that accurately reflects the available independent coverage. GourabIND (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Whatever is in the article now is a lot better than the poorly-sourced version you presented which seems like a seriously negative BLP--you got two articles, one of no more than a few sentences, and they don't even warrant your "critics pointed out": it's just social media shit. The exam schedule thing comes from "A user on X", yet you lend credibility to this stuff in your wording. As for your criticism of the article in its current state, the whole "threat" section starts with "Dipke alleged", so it's properly ascribed, and reported on by multiple reliable sources. It looks like you're sealioning here. In fact, I am so disappointed in how you presented the "evidence" in the HT article that I am going to place a warning on this page. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Abhijeet Dipke (activist). "Information" that is presented in a negative way, unwarranted by the sources presented. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2026 (UTC)