User talk:Mvalliappan


 * }

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Corrosion has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://corrosionsurveyinindia.wordpress.com/. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Nachiapuram do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://wecancontrolcorrosioninindia.blogspot.com/. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of We CAN Control Corrosion in India


The article We CAN Control Corrosion in India has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Personal thesis, original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks for suggestions. Structure is revised to talk about the organization. objectives of our networking group are provided Mvalliappan (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of We CAN Control Corrosion in India for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article We CAN Control Corrosion in India 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 Articles for deletion/We CAN Control Corrosion in India 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. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate references are included Mvalliappan (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to bring any arguments you have in favor of keeping the article to Articles_for_deletion/We_CAN_Control_Corrosion_in_India for them to be considered. As for the references in the article, none of them demonstrates the notability of the organization, nor does any of the content of the article. (A comment posted by you at the bottom of a source doesn't count as substantive coverage of the organization by the source source.) Also, to be sure it's clear: if "We CAN Control Corrosion in India" is the title of an article, then the article needs to be about that organization, not a paper produced by the organization. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Structure is revised to include the suggestions on improving the quality of content. Notability of the group can be had from http://www.linkedin.com/groups/We-CAN-control-Corrosion-in-2584020/about Mvalliappan (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is still mostly you making policy arguments. Your posting at the Articles for Deletion page wasn't even an argument against deleting the page. It was yet another argument about the importance of your mission, which is irrelevant to the deletion question. Getting yourself listed on LinkedIn is no more an indication of notability than having yourself listed in the telephone directory or buying an ad in the newspaper. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability of our mission can be had from the members count and group statistics (http://www.linkedin.com/groups?groupDashboard=&gid=2584020). The present strength of our network is 456 professionals from various locations. Have a look on the statistics http://www3.clustrmaps.com/counter/maps.php?url=http://wecancontrolcorrosioninindia.blogspot.com and http://www2.clustrmaps.com/counter/maps.php?url=http://corrosionsurveyinindia.wordpress.com/ from the open source tools we maintain for our group. As I described in the article, establishment and utilization of corrosion control practices will depend on many resources and vary from country to country. Knowledge in Corrosion Control discipline is one of the major resources. "We CAN Control Corrosion in India" assembles Corrosion Management Knowledge from the interested professionals and discusses India centric corrosion issues for finding technology answers and sharing with other community Mvalliappan (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You are creating your own definition for "notability", which won't accomplish anything here. Applicable guidelines can be found in General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for organizations. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As per the guidelines our network has received significant coverage through assembly of 456 members (professionals in corrosion control discipline) in reliable social networking space that are independent of the subject. It is also listed in one of the publications from Chemical Engineering World India (http://www.cewindia.com/index.html). Have a look on the article posted as presentation: http://wecancontrolcorrosioninindia.blogspot.com/2011/06/information-management-for-material.html Mvalliappan (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "We have our own Facebook page" is not coverage by neutral, independent reliable sources, nor is your own blog. Nor is inclusion of your book in a listing by its publisher of the books that they publish (which, by the way, doesn't mention your organization, or any book that appears to be by your organization, anyway). You're continuing to give examples that are along the lines of being listed in the phone book. In case it comes up, you also don't get credit for being included in the program of events in which you participated, or for appearing in YouTube videos of speeches that you've given, or for being mentioned on CVs of people who've worked for you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Have a look on the recent technical publication http://issuu.com/cewindia/docs/cew__september_2013_/46 for the affiliation. I am giving you the pool of 456 members as reference for our internet based networking Mvalliappan (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand that organizations have members. The fact that an organization has members doesn't make it notable. I visited this new link you gave me. It shows me an article that you wrote. Writing an article doesn't make you notable. For either of these pieces of information to lead to notability, you would have to find independent, neutral sources that say "Here's some information on this organization we learned about that has 456 members and is fighting corrosion in India" or "An article by M. Valliappan on behalf of his organization that appeared on issuu.com is receiving a lot of attention in the environmental community" or something like that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)