Talk:Mallinātha Sūri

Untitled

Please remove the tags for deletion. To learn more about Mallinatha Suri, please search in google books for Mallinatha Suri: https://www.google.com/search?q=mallinatha&tbm=bks

Or google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mallinatha

Or jstor.org: http://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=mallinatha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varttik (talk • contribs) 11:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the biggest misconceptions about Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is about everything. When it comes down to Wikipedia's real mission, that is simply not true. Wikipedia is strictly about topics that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Whatever and whoever falls short is not entitled to have an article. Wikipedia has numerous editors who are just like you, so if something is common, and an article or other content about it on Wikipedia is missing, it is possible that no one thought of creating it before. Then again, there may be a good reason why it is missing. So before you create, think. Inclusion on Wikipedia for the most part means meeting the general notability guideline, which in a summary, requires there to be multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that provide more than just a mere trivial mention. This is the main one, though there are some other inclusion guidelines too. Existence is important. The main purpose of the requirement to have all articles and information contained within sourced (WP:V) is to prove that everything is true and accurate. But the mere existence does not automatically make a subject worthy of inclusion. There are various other guidelines that must be met, mostly found in WP:N. As for the lack of existence, there are rare cases when this can be notable. Please refer to WP:ITEXISTS. Further, it is important to stress the importance of NOT REMOVING TAGS UNTIL THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN FIXED like it has been done twice to this article. Remember this is just a PROD not a deletion. -- Loukinho (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC).

I have no time to argue. Please do as you please. It is your loss. Varttik (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC).

This is not an issue of "REMOVING TAGS UNTIL THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN FIXED", but of removing tags for issues which do not exist. Your replacement of obviously invalid tags is disruptive. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I had the wrong impression. You seem to be aware of WP:EQ&WP:CIV and hopefully, WP:AGF while calling my contributions disruptive and silly. I have never done the same to any of your contributions, even when I disagreed with them. I recommend you re-read WP:DIS and particularly WP:DEPE. Note that while I disputed the verifiability of this article (as in: I can't confirm nor deny the claims or its sources) I never prevented anybody who is able to contribute to do so. There is a clear misunderstanding of what this encyclopedia is. Furthermore, the other tags that I added of peacocking and original research still hold true. Like I mentioned on your talk page, I don't play edit and I won't play if you do. This can easily enter in my list of "articles I gave up on", I really have no dog in this fight. -- Louk⟟nho^≟ 00:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC).