Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Educational Trust (2nd nomination)

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. Michig (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Educational Trust

Muslim Educational Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; five seconds on Google should have been enough to see that this is a significant and long-standing organization who (among other things) quite literally wrote the book on Islam in British schools. ‑ 
  Iridescent 08:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A single book does not make an organisation notable. --

my talk 20:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - MET is central in debates in England over education of young Muslims, especially through the activity of Hewitt and Sarwar and particularly in the 1970s-1990s. I've added some material about this. The Trust is almost always discussed in news articles as the organization which an individual represents, with the individual receiving more in depth discussion, but the consistency and import of the organization's role leads me to believe they are notable. In particular,
  WP:GNG notes that coverage is significant if it "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This is clearly the case, even if no indepth article about the organization is cited. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per article improvements. Adequately referenced and I believe that the sources demonstrate notability at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2017 (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.