Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatawa-e-Razvia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. S warm  ♠  06:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Fatawa-e-Razvia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. A google news search returns zero hits. Current citations do not meet notability criteria.  Onel 5969  TT me 04:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - the article is a vehicle for advertising a link where the subject can be downloaded. Flat Out (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the link, no opinion on the notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I am working over it and will improve it. Its notability establishes by the fact that it is one of the main book of Sunni Muslims associated with Barelvi movement. It also has different spellings like see here and after changing spelling I also found this JSTOR result which is a legal opinion on supererogation and this Google Scholar result,Changed spelling Google Scholar. ScholarM (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * While searching for more notable sources, I came to know that Arun Shourie has discussed in length various fatawas of this article in his book, The World of Fatwas or the Sharia in Action: (2012, ISBN 9789350293423). There is already a wiki Page in Urdu language on this subject which is well sourced. I have added Dainik Jagran as a source which is largest circulated daily of India. The subject is indeed notable and widely published in Islamic field. ScholarM (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   13:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fatawa-e-Razvia or Fatawa-e-Radviyyah or similar spellings is now contains several reliable sources. It has been devoted special chapters by Arun Shourie in his famous book, The World of Fatwas or the Sharia in Action: (2012, ISBN 9789350293423). There is no reason it should not be in Wikipedia. I will improve the article further.ScholarM (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

*Strong Keep (user voted twice) Onel 5969  TT me 18:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC) : The topic has now RS and pass GNG. Without looking into the sources how you can make such a comment FreeatlastChitchat. ScholarM (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: the subject seems to pass GNG. Also, software and online versions are available. Mhhossein (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete In its current form the article should be removed ASAP. Perhaps someone can sandbox it to his user sandbox and use the article for submission after he has worked on it, although it appears to be a very vague thing, not sure if any RS will be found which has discussed this. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This user voted twice--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are NILL RS's here. and i mean literally zero, zilch, nada, al numero big fatto zero. So the article should not have even passed the patrolled phase to be frank, it should have been speedy deleted. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * keep Fatawa-e-Razvia the most reference book of Barelvi movement.--Obaid Raza (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: After relisting, I thought that again my vote was required. Apologies. My above Keep vote should be counted. ScholarM (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.