` which do not even have an online edition, let alone something that is accesible for paid useers. Any way, I will try to give some references (from standard books) while updating the article in future   == First clinical syndrome ==  About your article First Clinical Syndrome, I have changed it to a redirect to the article medical student syndrome. Medical student syndrome is a much more commonly used term, and the phenomenon is a global one. Therefore, there shouldn't be different articles for the same term in regional dialects of English. You are free to add more to medical student syndrome. I couldn't find anything in your article to merge, however.    :I've reverted that. See talk:medical student syndrome.     == Ayyavazhi and Duryodhana ==  While there is nothing wrong in mentioning Duryodhana in the Ayyavazhi articles, it is not appropriate to insert it in the main Duryodhana article. Ayyavazhi is not notable enough to be mentioned there and in a number of places. It is the same as including Ayyavazhi in the Menstrual cycle article (see ). There is nothing wrong creating dozens of Ayyavazhi articles, but it is wrong creating links from every possible location on WP. -    ===Ayyavazhi=== When you have      * 13.1 Buddhism on menstruation     * 13.2 Christianity on menstruation     * 13.3 Hinduism on menstruation     * 13.4 Islam on menstruation     * 13.5 Judaism on menstruation     * 13.6 Sikhism on menstruation     * 13.7 Tribal societies and menstruation     * 13.8 Mysticism  What is wrong in Having Ayyavazhi on Menstraution  Please note that I am not a follower of that religion, but I feel that we don't have any right to deny an existence of a religion. When you permit Tribal societies and Mysticism, I feel that Ayyavazhi has a place.  This is my opinion. Please correct me if I am wrong. I want a discussion and not argument    Similarly, I feel that it should be included in the list of religions also    :Hi! All the religions you mention about are a million times more notable than Ayyavazhi. Ayyavazhi is not even a recognised religion in India. Wikipedia has a Notability guideline which prevents us from doing precicely this. There a literally thousands of minor religions in this world, and all of them probably have an opinion on menstruation. What will happen if all these thousands of religions want mention in that article? We are compiling an encyclopedia, not a world fact book.Tribal societies and mysticism are generalised sections in that article which give an overview of the practices. Ayyavazhi with its miniscule followers does not belong in that article. -    ===Duryodhana=== When you are mentioning ``In Kumaon region of Uttranchal`` in the page of Duryodhana and not limiting to mention Duryodhana in Kumaon (for example), I think the same logic should be followed for Ayyavazhi also  Again this is MY opinion and I would like to see a consensus   Please correct me if I am wrong. I want a discussion and not an argument The following copied from  -   ===Recognition=== With reference to your comment on my talk page that ``Ayyavazhi is not even a recognised religion in India``,  Sorry for my ignorance. What is a ``recognised religion`` in India  By the way, my district collector (meaning State Govt) declares an holiday on one of their festivals    Any how, my simple question is that ``Just because we are not aware of something, it is justified that we oppose articles about it in Wikipedia``  Again this is MY opinion and I would like to see a consensus    I suppose the census data is one of the things that distinguish a 'recognised' relegion. This page contains the data from the 2001 census and a spreadsheet which contains state-wise data. The data from Tamil Nadu has the number of Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Budhists, Others and Relegion not stated. There are 54985079 Hindus, 7252 'others' and 59344 who have not stated their relegion. Obviously, the government has not counted Ayyavazhi as a seperate relegion.        The government in 2001 may not have counted Ayyavazhi as a seperate religion. But the same government declares an occasion as Gazetted Holiday in 2006 (for the first time). Does it tell you something. If there is a change in 2006, why not we accept that    ::When did TN government's vote grabbing attempts become equivalant to official recognition?! BTW the holiday was declared in a couple of districts of TN, and not for whole state. Does this make Ayyavazhi notable enough to include in a encyclopediaic summary article of a bodily function? I don't think so -    :::To answer your question ``If we are not aware of something, does it justify opposing it?`` - Of course it does. That is how WP evolves - through negotiations and challenges and verifiability. If the subject is proven to be verifiable then it is allowed to exist by the community. Ayyavazhi in my opinion has utterly failed in the notability and verifiability criteria. Going by your argument anyone can create any article on any subject and use your argument to justify its existence. It will totally undermine WP's reliability as a source. -     :::I think you have totally misunderstood my reply.  I said WP evolves and grows based on challenges and skepticism by the WP community. We don't (shouldn't) anything at face value. The most imortant criteria in Wikipedia is its Verifiability. For example, if I create an article on, say, a species of three eyed monkey, and base the article solely on my having seen the monkey, it will be challenged and deleted from WP. Notability and verifiability demands that any subject documented should be (a) verifiable - ie should be independently documented from a neutral point of view by a reliable third party, meaning I can't one of my friends to create a website on the three-eyed monkey and cite that website as reference in my WP article, and (b) Notable - ie should be relatively well know beyond a select group of people. In this example, I can't claim notability for the three-eyed monkey just because myself and a friend of mine have seen it.  :::If an article is questioned based on the notability and verifiability criteria, it is not because the article is untrue, but it just means it is not a suitable WP article. An encyclopedia does not contain unverified information, nor does it contain original research.  :::I am not familiar with your problems with the article Medical School but it does show that WP works. There is a conversation happening and a compromise will be reached.  :::Coming to the Ayyavazhi issue, I have nothing against the faith itself or its followers. My only issue was the way  had inserted Ayyavazhi is places it does not belong. There is no reason an obscure faith such as Ayyavazhi should be listed on par with the world's major religions. :::- See this discussion. The same user had gone and  created hundreds of links on pages with no apparent connection with Ayyavazhi. The List of religions page perhaps warrents a mention os Ayyavazhi, that is why I agreed to leave it there. But See  and  and even the . I think this is a blatent attempts of evangelical zeal that does not have a place in WP -    ::::What I meant by When did TN government's vote grabbing attempts become equivalant to official recognition? was was this the first time TN government try to get the votes of a minority group. Obviously there are quite a few followers of Ayyavazhi in the districts mentioned, although they may think themselves as non-hindus. Declaring a holiday IMO is a way of pandering to this group. -    :::::Let's not go into all that. Yes, Ayyavazhi merits a place in List of Religions, but not in summary articles like Menstrual Cycle etc., at least not yet. Let us try to add valid references from among those suggested by Vaikunda Raja at Talk:History of Tamil Nadu. I'd suggest that they publish more on this subject in peer-reviewed conferences and journals and then add relevant references here. Because, Wikipedia is not a place for submitting primary research