Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal


 * 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 of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 15:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal
Advertisement, vanity. nn. Delete Ardenn 07:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: If you looked at the pages that linked to the article, you would see that it is very notable - the organization obtained a court interdict blocking the publication of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. You will also see them mentioned in this regard if you do a search on Google News. Their actions is likely to raise important constitutional questions in South Africa about freedom of speech. That in itself should prove sufficient justification for keeping the article.


 * In addition, it also appears to be a notable group in its own right, with significant political influence . Park3r 07:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: they are a significant and recognized Islamic organization, with published material read and followed by Muslims well beyond South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.160.162 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 8 February 2006


 * Keep per Park3r. Can't see how it fits into "advertisement" or "vanity". Camillus (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Park3r   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  17:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful -- Marvin147 02:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant enough in the news that it's notable and verifyable. --Wingsandsword 10:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't like the idea that "one-hit wonders" get their spot on Wikipedia as they are unlikely to pass the ten year test (i.e. will they be remembered in 10 years' time?). While the organisation is fairly well-known in South Africa, they have achieved fame primarily through this ruling (which is quite significant and is likely to be appealed by several newspapers). BUT, they are not famous in their own right; the article itself does not quote third party verifiable sources to prove the importance of the subject. Zunaid 12:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no merge required as info is already there). The organisation is not notable enough to have an individual article, but the ruling should (and does) get a mention. Zunaid 12:08, 7 February 2006 (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.