User talk:Rahul beri

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~. Please add your messages to the bottom of the talk page, or they may be overlooked. I deleted your article because
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. It is now Wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have independent verifiable references, as defined in the link, or they will be deleted. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to him or the organisation, press releases, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the he or the organisation  claims. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
 * There were some links at the bottom of the page, but they were not in-line so we can't tell what fact each is supporting, none appeared to be independent third-party sources anyway
 * It wasn't clear why he meets the notability criteria, and some of the claims, such as Nobel prize and being an ambassador are clearly misleading or fake.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: '' well known... later with the interest and forcing of friends... is ruling 12 states of india and 7 international countries around the world... many National and International awards... excellence in Humanity and World Peace
 * The article was an autobiography. He has an obvious conflict of interest and should not write about himself. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Requested articles for the article to be created. See also guidance for editors with conflicts of interest
 * He has not edited in good faith. He has removed speedy deletion notices himself and created single-purpose accounts to try to influence outcomes (I notice that your edit on my talk page was your only one).
 * Any one editing the article who has a conflict of interest must declare it. In particular, if, like you, they work directly or indirectly for the organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, they are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if they are being paid directly or indirectly by the organisation, they  are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose their employer, client and affiliation, posting such a mandatory disclosure to their user page. The template Paid can be used for this purpose.

The article is now protected, and anyone trying to inappropriately circumvent that protection will be blocked from editing.

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)