User talk:Abhijit8086

AfD nomination of CleverTexting

I have nominated CleverTexting, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CleverTexting. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of CleverTexting

A tag has been placed on CleverTexting requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your talk page comment that "The moron who decides to delete it next time should Google the word first before doing so!", the article was deleted as a result of this discussion between five editors. Having checked Google myself, the product only appears to have four press release articles, which suggests - for a product released two weeks ago - that it does not yet meet notability criteria for encyclopaedia coverage. --McGeddon (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Given that you're saying how "we" haven't yet put out a press release for CleverTexting, I suggest that you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines before writing any more about your product in this encyclopaedia. Editors are strongly advised to avoid or exercise great caution when editing articles related to themselves, their organization, their products or their competitors. --McGeddon (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3000 Google hits

The article about your company was deleted because it failed notability requirements, which are indeed simple enough for a 17-year-old to understand. These are clearly defined as:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

The key phrases being "reliable sources" (they need to be academic papers, newspaper articles or blogs written from great authority) and "independent of the subject" (simple rehashes of your own press releases don't count). If you want to put an argument forward, you just need to dig out two reliable sources that have written about CleverTexting.

(A number of Google hits is specifically highlighted as an unhelpful argument against deleting an article.) --McGeddon (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the blogs you mention were just quoting chunks of your press release.

If you want someone to help create the article for you (and to override the block on the article name, which has been WP:SALTed after you recreated it twice), I'd suggest leaving a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications, requesting article creation. --McGeddon (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Camp Rover

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Camp Rover, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

there is no indication that this training camp is notable.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]