User talk:Kalpeshchatterjee

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Kalpeshchatterjee, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Social Kinnect, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Sulaimandaud (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Social Kinnect[edit]

Hello Kalpeshchatterjee,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Social Kinnect for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Mduvekot (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Deb (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social Kinnect[edit]

I recommend you start by reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Deb (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, are you saying you are not involved in any way with Social Kinnect? You did not help set it up? You do not know the people who did set it up? Deb (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you go through the Wikipedia:Peer review process. Deb (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Deb, I have set it up the Social Kinnect article, but after go through the guidelines i need to resubmit it again, so can i do that.

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Social Kinnect. Thank you. Bri (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Social Kinnect for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Social Kinnect is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Kinnect until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have edit the article, still you feel if it is not perfect or any promotional content is still there, can you help me on the same, so I can make this article more quality.

@Kalpeshchatterjee:, I understand how you can find this confusing. The text I wrote at WP:Articles for deletion/Social Kinnect uses internal Wikipedia jargon. Jargon has the advantage that it is faster and clearer for those that are familiar with it but obviously looks opaque to those who are not familiar. Allow me to help by breaking down the jargon and then you may see why I expressed the concerns I did:

"Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH." This refers to a guideline the project has on the notability on corporations and businesses, particularly on the depth of coverage. You can find the guideline at this link. The guideline states: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Some of these points will be expanded further below.
"Most of the citations are to press release hostings or blog-type sites of doubtful WP:RS status." WP:RS refers to another guideline, one about finding reliable sources. You can find the guideline at this link. That guideline states, in part: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is the "fact-checking and accuracy" portion that especially concerns this nomination. Pres releases and blogs are not considered reliable since they do not have robust fact-checking (and pres releases aren't fact-checked at all) and their accuracy is unknown (and sometimes unknowable).
"Two cites to lighthouseinsights.in are possible RS but purely promotional." Two links were to the Lighthouse Insights online magazine which does appear to have the qualities asked for by that reliable source guideline. The problem however, is that we have another policy against using Wikipedia as a means of promoting subjects. You can find that policy at this link.
"WP:BEFORE finds" Before nominating an article for deletion, and editor such as myself is supposed to try to determine for themselves if the subject is notable, and not just the current article. By stating this, I am telling other participants in the discussion that I did make the recommended checks and considerations and did not find anything that dissuaded me. You can find the policy on these checks at this link.
"only more WP:ROUTINE coverage of marketing agency." Continuing the above point, I did find coverage of this company, but it was the sort of coverage that one normally expects to find. That is, industry awards and press releases. The policy on what is significant coverage of a subject says: ...routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. You can find that policy at this link. To give you another example, I am a writer and I have been published under my real name. J. K. Rowling is also a writer and she has been published under her real name. She has and article and I do not. What is the difference? There is nothing about me other than "routine coverage" while there is certainly non-routine coverage of Rowling.
"Very close to CSD#G11 territory." Some articles can be deleted without community discussion, but there hare strict limits on this. The policy is called the Criteria for Speedy Deletion (a/k/a CSD). You can find that policy at this link. "G11 territory" ...applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with.. the policy I mentioned above about not using the encyclopedia to promote a business. What I am stating here is that the page is very nearly so promotional as to qualify for that criterion, but there were enough references that I needed to ask for the rest of the community's opinions.

What does all that mean for you? Well, first and foremost, you are a member of the community and you are welcome to add your opinion to the discussion. You can do that by clicking this link and editing the page to add your reasons for keeping the page. Start by typing:"*'''Keep'''" on a new line and finish by typing four tilde characters (~~~~) to sign your post. I suggest reading the essay at this link before making such a post.

Otherwise, I hope the above explanations provide you with the information you need to improve the article. Thank you, and good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]