Several things about the original form of the question may have been less than helpful.
The title for the question is "How to avoid the misrepresentation of one's research work in Google Knowledge Panel?", but this question is answered in the body of the question, where you describe how you need to go through an identity verification procedure where you hit upon a snag and then quote the answer you got from Google: "acceptable web profiles on SRP are Facebook, LinkedIn, Soundcloud, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Official website.". You then state that you are not willing to make social media profiles. You are well within your rights to make that choice, but on my side it looks like you're asking a question to which you know the answer but you're not willing to accept the answer.
Then you finish off with "Did anyone manage to successfully claim their panel?", which is a different question altogether, and rather opinion-based to boot. Which question are you actually interested in, the title question or the final question?
To me, these read like reasons to vote for closure because the question needs more clarity, and because the question is opinion-based, respectively. You ask here, however, why the question was closed as off-topic. I can only guess. You're asking after the company policy of Google's identity verification process, for editing a knowledge panel. This is the policy of a company, regarding one of their products, and how users* of that product can interact meaningfully with the company. I don't see how that is on-topic for academia.SE.
*this may not be the right word here; you have been volunteered by Google to become one of their users, and now want to correct what their automated system screws up. I sympathize with your situation.