Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjay Nigam: Difference between revisions

Sanjay Nigam (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)

Contested draftification. It has previously been deleted under WP:CSD#G15, as problematic AI, then asked for a restoration in draft space, but instead “Rewritten from scratch after deletion under G15; all content verified from reliable independent sources”. This rendition was then draftified as problematic: “Evidence of AI generation, citing only sources that are either primary, press releases, or trivial mentions”. As the creator then moved it back, here we are. Geschichte (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @Gocrazy69, @Anachronist, @JTtheOG. Geschichte (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#G15. I draftified it because not a single source met WP:Golden Rule criteria (and that should have been corrected to eliminate the G15 issue), and there have been no improvements since it was moved back to main space. In fact, the only subsequent edits made by Gocrazy69 were to make the article more promotional! WTF? I have to wonder why the Gocrazy69 is so eager to have this article in mainspace when the problems were clearly communicated; it gives an impression of typical behavior one would expect from a desperate undisclosed paid editor. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Anachronist. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The sources could possibly indicate notability, but the article is so blatantly promotional that it almost falls under G11. Somepinkdude (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep

Hi all — I’m the article’s creator.
This version of *Sanjay Nigam* was written by me from scratch, and is based on high quality independent sources in India.

I understand the concern about tone; I’m happy to improve it better to ensure better neutrality.
In my opinion the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO given coverage in multiple independent national publications — including *Business Standard (2025)*, *Economic Times (2025)*, and *Times of India (2023)*.

If we still decide towards deletion, I’d request that the article be **userfied** to my userspace (User:Gocrazy69/SanjayNigam) instead of deleted, so that I can improve it with more and better citations.

Thank you for reviewing this in good faith.
— Gocrazy69 (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I’ve revised the article:

• Removed “Top 5 inspiring personalities” reference, which seemed like a PR feature.
• Re-worded tone for a neutrality and clarity.
• All remaining references are from independent national media in India.

— Gocrazy69 (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t write it from scratch, an AI wrote most of it, verified by AI detection tools. And it appears the AI made the comment above too. You had a chance to improve it when it was draftified, but instead you decided unilaterally, without review, to move it to mainspace and make it even more promotional. However, I would not object to re-draftification. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]