Talk:Mulla Hamzah Gilani

three century before us
Pixarh. please pay attention to the history of his death into lunar which is three century before. I think there is no pay attention enough ton this point.--m,sharaf (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@m,sharaf, thank you for the clarification although your language seems a little vague. Regardless, there isnt a single reference for the article. The article does not meet the notability criteria. The provided references are fake.Pixarh (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Your article is at risk as it meets the criteria for deletion. If you wish to improve this article please do so otherwise it may get deleted.Pixarh (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Pixarh. hi and thanks for attention to this page. but I think that there are some references to Corbin,Ashtiyyani refernces. I think according to "The word '''"source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:


 * The piece of work itself (the article, book)
 * The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)''' not only there is no contradiction with policies of notability but also there are some evidences verifying that on the basis of which:
 * 1) The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.--m,sharaf (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Do not remove tags unless you have made improvement
You cannot remove notability tags, etc. without meeting the criteria for notability. Your article does not contain a singal reference. As already stated, apart from the poor state of the article, the article contains fake references. The article cannot stand and it fails the criteria - that third party reliable sources have found the subject worth discussing in a significant manner. Wikipedia is not a promotional platform and relies on reliable sources. Rather than removing tags, you must add references to justify your article's content. That is part of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.Pixarh (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * not only this article has some notable references but also is based on reliable sources.if you want to add more references it is another subject.--m,sharaf (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not take this personally. It is not related to me or to any other editor. This is the part of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and fundamental rules. You must have references. I dont see a single reference except Wikipedia links that redirect back to this same article.Pixarh (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@m,sharaf You cannot remove the PROD unless you contest it. Do not make edits unless you learn the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. All your actions prove you are not familiarising yourself with them and instead involving yourself in disruptive editing]. Pixarh (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * you are incorrect. Anyone can remove the Proposed deletion tag at any point for any reason or no reason.  Once it has been removed or contested in any form it can never be readded.  If you feel this article should be deleted you will need to use WP:AFD.  -- GB fan 11:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes anyone can remove the PORD template but not the editor who is already involved in an edit-war. Pixarh (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , you know, it takes two to edit war. You readded the Prod against policy as part of that small edit war.  Neither one of you were doing the right thing.  -- GB fan 20:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I added notable resources but there is no pay attention to my addition.as GB pointed out above there is no good reason to delete and edit my page. besides I think these edits is not aacording to Good faith.It is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation, etc.--m,sharaf (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I did not say there is no good reason to delete or edit the page. I said that it was inappropriate to readd the Prod after it had been removed once.  There are always reasons to edit pages and there may be good reasons to delete pages, Pixarh was just going about it the wrong way.  -- GB fan 20:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ok. pardon me. that's it.--m,sharaf (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)