User talk:Vinay089

Welcome to my talk page

• Please sign your comments with Vinay089 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• I will normally reply on your talk page (holding a conversation across 2 pages) unless you have instructions on your talkpage, in which case I will follow them.
• If you wish to undo an action of mine go ahead, you don't need my permission, but please inform me that you have done so.

Start a new talk topic

Vinay089, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Vinay089! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Naypta (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Ritesh Agarwal, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ayaan Chawla

I strongly advise you not to try. The title is protected because of a prolonged and disruptive attempt to promote him here, with many articles under different titles, and many sockpuppets trying to influence deletion discussions:

• Ayaan Chawla deleted four times, AfD, DRV, another DRV, a third DRV
• A. Chawla deleted twice, AfD
• Ayaan chawla
• Ayaan C.
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ron Gates/Archive - a large number of single-purpose accounts trying to promote Chawla and asking to keep his articles. Quote from one of the editors deaing with it: "This guy is so bad on creating socks that it's beyond hilarious but its already causing too much disruption..."

The articles showed someone very energetic at setting up companies and websites and self-promoting on social media, but did not convince anyone except his sockpuppets that he had any WP:Notability in Wikipedia's sense. Things like setting up your own company and being "Youngest CEO" don't mean anything unles the company actually achieves something.

That history means that any new article will be looked at very closely indeed, and unless you can produce convincing evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources you will be wasting your time. If streams of single purpose accounts appear to back you up, you will all likely be blocked as yet more "Ron Gates" sockpuppets.

If you still want to go ahead, first read WP:Notability and WP:Notability (summary) and WP:Your first article and use WP:Articles for creation to make a draft. If it is accepted at the AfC stage, it will probably need to go to AfD again.

Note that if you are employed or paid by Chawla, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use ("Paid contributions without disclosure" under section 4) to disclose your interest in any edits where you have a WP:Conflict of interest.

JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@JohnCD: OK. It's interesting, actually today I've seen an article about Chawla in newspaper and then I searched about him and found much reliable sources. I think I should drop the idea or I'll create an article as draft for approval first will also inform you. What you suggest? Vinay089 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to try, you should make a draft. I am afraid you will be wasting your time: think really hard about notability first, because the references in the deleted articles showed energetic PR and name-dropping but no evidence of actual substantial achievements. Wikipedia is quite experienced at telling actual achievement apart from PR and "famous-for-being-famous". In that context, note the comment about one of the previous articles in this DRV from a very experienced user:

"The references are essentially PR. We are gradually getting away from the most naive interpretation of the GNG, that it doesn't matter where the article comes from or what it says. Notability has to be for something, and if there are references expressing coverage for nothing much, it doesnt belong in an encyclopedia. Having worked with this area for years, I am getting increasingly skeptical of the non-promotional or substantial nature of much Indian newspaper coverage, even in the best papers."

"GNG" is the WP:General notability guideline. Having a large number of trivial references does not help - see also Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)