Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Girls Training (MGT)

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 no consensus. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Girls Training (MGT)[edit]

This article is an advertisement for a class on how to be a proper Muslim woman. The article attempts to achieve notability by comparing itself to an identically named class (which isn't notable in its own right) founded by Wallace Fard Muhammad. Google search results in this wikipage and several forums, as well as the website that this page is an ad for. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote this article several months ago so I'm disappointed to hear that it reads like an endorsement or advertisement. Muslim Girls Training and General Civilization Classes (MGT) have been an institution within the Nation of Islam since 1933. With dozens of temples across the U.S. and abroad, the largest of which are more than 70 years old, MGT has had many thousands of students/trainees (though there are no numbers and NOI does not release accurate membership details). The article does not endorse the classes or even direct the reader toward classes. There is no other article about this institution elsewhere on Wikipedia's NOI-related pages, so it is not comparing itself to another article in seeking relevance. As MGT is the womens' counterpart to the all-male Fruit of Islam, it should be represented in Wikipedia if the FOI is. Finally, while the sourcing isn't as specific as it should be, I did use two mainstream sources not aligned with NOI in writing the piece. This article can be improved and made more relevant, but I disagree with its characterization as an advertisement. I hope this is helpful in making a decision regarding deletion!Njsamizdat (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - don't despair; it doesn't read as an advert to me. I think you did a pretty good job. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Organization has been notable for decades. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is an example of a subject whose notability will be difficult to establish per "secondary" source searches, yet it seems to have significance as an important institutional component of a very notable organization. My only concern is with regard to the Nom's apparent claim that it's a sham because it "attempts to achieve notability by comparing itself to an identically named class (which isn't notable in its own right) founded by Wallace Fard Muhammad." Either this is an institutional component of the Nation of Islam, or it's not. Somebody please enlighten us. J L G 3 9 2 6 02:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jlg3926, inherits the entirety of it's notability from the parent topic, with no independant recognition; i.e. isn't well known in it's own right. Unless the article had actually gained recognition because of the Nation of Islam, then there are no grounds for inclusion. Admittance that subject's notability is "difficult to establish" confirms a lack of sources for this article as a unique topic, and I'm no certain Ism Schism's assertion that it has "been notable for decades" is a verifiable reference. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sometimes I despair of AfDs. Did anyone bother to see if this group had any references establishing its notability. I can find five with as many minutes searching: Islam in Black America (p 72), Black nationalism in American politics and thought (p 120), Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America‎ (p. 613), Black education: a transformative research and action agenda for the new century (270) and Black Muslim religion in the Nation of Islam, 1960-1975 (p. 146). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Passing mentions in books on higher order subjects hardly constitutes "Significant coverage". Can you name a single veriifiable source that are actually dedicated to the topic? As I said in my own delete comment, inheritance of notability, and mentions only in terms of the greater subject do not provide substantial enough coverage for inclusion. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why must it have a whole book dedicated to the topic? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional newsprint sources (please note the second is inflammatory and I include it only for purposes of notability): Muslim Girls Training has fashion show: Modesty is theme of annual, The Philadelphia Tribune September 16, 1994; Islam Cult Seeks To Kill Whites, Milwaukee Sentinel Feb 26, 1961. Both are non-trivial mentions. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2009 (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.