All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jaded): I also tried for looking online sources in Urdu language but failed to find any.  There are some good mentions I am able to see through Google Book but this organisation lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable source that discuss it and its works.  Since this is an offshoot of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board , I suggest a merge to that article.  Opinions please?  ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India .  ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Maybe merging is a good idea, if for no other reason, to get consistency on the name spelling.   The article mentions "Jadeed", as does the article it would be moved to.   However, take note that the title of this page spells it "Jaded".  — Maile ( talk ) 20:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maile66 , yep, I suppose that is an inadvertent error, the article could be moved to a correct spelling, "Jadid" or "Jadeed" both of which are used in sources.  This is to make sure correct name redirects to AIMPLB where it would be merged.  ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is another organisation, it cannot be merged.  Some articles names it “Jadeed” and some names it “Jaded”.  You can move it to correct spelling but not to AIMPLB, if you’ll do like this then you should merge Shia Personal Law Board too.  Thanks | Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi ( talk ) 10:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC) | [ reply ] The organisation being independent of AIMPLB is not the topic of this discussion but whether it is a notable one to be included ob Wikipedia, is what we are talking about.  I do not find enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that could help, and that made me suggest an alternative to deletion ( WP:ATD ) of having some information mentioned on the AIMPLB article about the split and creation of this separate board.  I haven't had enough time to go through resources about Shia Personal Law Board.  If you feel it doesn't merit an article subject to notability guidelines, you are free to bring it on AfD but this discussion is not about that article.  This is about "All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadeed/variants)", whether it is notable or not.  I don't see any indications of this being a notable organisation per WP:NORG .  ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let more users to comment here.  —- | Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi ( talk ) 17:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC) | [ reply ] All India Muslim Personal Law Board and All India Muslim Personal Law Board Jaded both are different.   Indian Muslim clerics opposed the All India Muslim Personal Law Board for working for the RSS, then through a meeting another Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadid) was formed by cleric of sunni barelvi muslim.  Wikischolarrr ( talk ) 05:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is many significant sources available on Google please find in hindi.  (ऑल इंडिया मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड जदीद) https://www.abplive.com/news/states/those-who-reject-sharai-law-islam-will-not-accept-them-913254 Wikischolarrr ( talk ) 05:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No reliable sources discuss All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadeed) significantly.  It does have some routine coverage but that does not satisfy notability.  ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is Indian news not a reliable source?  Wikischolarrr ( talk ) 07:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi and @ Wikischolarrr .  Both seem to be different organisations with different ideologies.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 04:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is seriously not a question here.  This organisation is not notable per whatever is available on Internet about it.  It fails WP:NORG / WP:GNG so it is not notable enough to have a standalone article.  Merge/Redirect to the originisation from where it took birth is just as WP:ATD and not something that says both the organisations are one.  ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This organisation is not notable per whatever is available on Internet about it ?  really ?  This policy is very new to me!  Okoslavia ( talk ) 05:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well this is my WP:BEFORE , you can provide if there is anything significant available to you elsewhere.  ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is the random AFD I come across alongwith dozens of afds I have participated.  @ Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi @ Wikischolarrr You both seem to be familiar with the subject per your contribs, you can also cite offline sources if there any along with the decent source (abp live) which you have presented here at AFD.  I am sure to say, there is no policy of Wikipedia which says that sources should be available on internet to make subject notable .  Parting.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 05:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also @ Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi and @ Wikischolarrr you might want to specify your votes by amending it as delete, merge or keep.  This may help the discussion closer.  Not sure though.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 05:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this source from The Milli Gazette a passing mention?  Okoslavia ( talk ) 14:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also see Jones, Justin (2010).  " 'Signs of churning': Muslim Personal Law and public contestation in twenty-first century India" .  Modern Asian Studies .  44 (1): 175–200.  doi : 10.1017/S0026749X09990114 .  ISSN 1469-8099 .  Okoslavia ( talk ) 14:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Okoslavia , could you please be specific and tell how "significant" the fewer sentences in these two sources are?  From MG, What came as a surprise was that not even a cursory note was taken of the creation of a new “board” called the “All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadeed)” founded on 10 December 2004 by one of the progenies of the founder of Barelvi sect, Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, on the plea that his sect was not properly represented on the old board is seriously not something I would call very much significant but it is okay & helpful (if we add to to other significant sources).  The CUP source I am getting mentions just In November 2004,Tauqeer Reza Khan of the Barelvi school of Sunni Islam deserted the AIMPLB to establish a separate and somewhat make shift organisation known as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadid), representing a partial split from the original AIMPLB of one of the largest subdivisions with Indian Sunni Islam ; and this is seriously not very detailed coverage.  If you think mere two sentences about an organisation's split from another organisation and its establishment is worth, then I believe, a plenty of organisations would meet this criteria.  I would at the least be happy with at least one paragraph in any reliable source that significantly discusses the works/history of any organisations.  The two provided do not go beyond the "establishment and split", and hence my suggestion that this could be mentioned in a good detail on AIMPLB article.  Please let me know if I missed anything.  I would be happy to re-consider my thoughts.  I am a human at all.  ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TheAafi is just making excuses because he belongs to Deobandi sect of Islam, He is here to delete this article and they don’t want Barelvi Muslims to progress on Internet and Wikipedia.  The article passes WP:NORG do not excuse.  We’ll fight with our Aqeedah but not on internet.   The Subject is notable enough, it has great coverage you’re continuously saying not notable, what’s this?  You’re not new to the policies.  Don’t Do like this.  I hope you’ll understand and stop making excuses.  The subject is notable.  ا—-• Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi ( talk ) 17:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) •—ا [ reply ] @ Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi , you shouldn't be commenting on someone's personal inclination and I would call this a violation of UCOC .  (Please avoid this in future).  I have myself written/improved articles such as Yaseen Akhtar Misbahi (a Barelwi scholar) and got it on the mainpage.  AfD's aren't sectarian debates but discussions about a certain subject's notability.  You can help find resources and establish why and how the subject passes WP:GNG / WP:NORG .  Don't bring anything else into this debate.  Just present WP:THREE best resources that significantly discuss this organisation (offline/online) and for now we have just had one (Milli Gazette and Cambridge).  I am counting this one because they talk exactly about the same thing.  ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi Please see IDL .  And @ TheAafi you are really missing the whole para in The Milli Gazette source which says, What came as a surprise was that not even a cursory note was taken of the creation of a new “board” called the “All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Jadeed)” founded on 10 December 2004 by one of the progenies of the founder of Barelvi sect, Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, on the plea that his sect was not properly represented on the old board.  There is news in the air that Shias too are in the process of forming their own board for similar reasons.  The Barelvi board is said to be part of a Congress effort to split Muslims.  Maulana Tauqeer is an active Congressman and close to the Congress MP, Maulana Ubaidullah Azmi.  Reportedly the previous BJP government too toyed with the idea and contacted a number of ulama for the purpose.  You might want to see trivial mention where Wikipedia provided us the clear guidelines with example to understand what passing mention is.  Also please review BLUDGEONING .  It wastes more Wikipedia resources.  You are also missing other coverage in Jones 2010.  Please make sure Three is not the Wikipedia policy but an essay by an admin.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Okoslavia , Thank you.  I am not BLUDGEONING but just asking for what I could have missed and how the organisation is notable.  Thanks for bringing more from MG.  I am aware that Three is an essay but "even two resources are multiple" and if a subject has enough coverage in just two resources I am personally of the view that such a subject is notable.  As you have quoted MG above, I believe this one is a significant source, but there should be some more.  Are there any sources beyond routine coverage?  The Cambridge Resource has three lines that I have quoted above (and I am still agreeing to consider it as a potential helper) but it is not detailed.  Please let me know what is missed.  I would be happy to withdraw the nomination, if provided with how this organisations satisfies notability.  ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TheAafi you can check this Gupta, Akhil; Sivaramakrishnan, Kalyanakrishnan (2010-10-04).  The State in India After Liberalization: Interdisciplinary Perspectives .  Routledge .  ISBN 978-1-136-93720-0 .  Beyond what trivial mention says.  Hope this helps.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 18:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tschalaer, Mengia Hong (2017-07-04).  Muslim Women's Quest for Gender Justice .  Cambridge University Press .  ISBN 978-1-107-15577-0 .  Fantastic example of significant coverage.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 19:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Okoslavia , Thank you.  I am not able to find anything but a passing mention (like it split and was created in 2004) in Akhil 2010 but Tschalaer is better and significant (imo), and I myself found a few sentences on this from German scholar Mathias Rohe in slamic Law in Past and Present which I have updated in the article.  Now that we have some credible sources discussion's this organisation's split from AIMPLB and creation, we have exactly very few resources that talk about any other aspects of it, except what I could get from Siasat on the Tasleema Nasreen case.  I believe there should be more, but I am relieved, and I view this is close to borderline notability.  Let's see how other uninvolved editors weigh in on this.  Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus