Talk:Rizwan-Muazzam Qawwali Group
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rizwan-Muazzam Qawwali Group article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Proposed deletion, and objection thereto[edit]
On May 17, Epeefleche proposed deletion because of "no indicia of notability".
5 days later, Phil Bridger contested deletion and removed the deletion tag.
Although Rizwan-Muazzam are indeed well-regarded qawwals, I think the proposed deletion was still well-conceived. The article really does not establish notability. All citations are to the qawwals' official web site, except for one citation in support of the innocuous opening sentence: "The Rizwan-Muazzam Qawwali group is a Qawwali group, headed by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan's nephews, Rizwan and Muazzam."
By no stretch of the imagination can this be adduced as evidence of notability.
No doubt, proper sources exist that will serve to establish the notability of Rizwan-Muazzam. But such sources have to be incorporated into the article before the deletion tag can be validly contested.
I think it's a pity the deletion tag was removed. It helps to put editors on notice that the article needs to be improved. --Sarabseth (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Sarabseth's observations. The article to me failed to indicate indicia as to why it should not be deleted under A7. And the editor who removed the prod failed to present any rationale for removing the prod. The editor who removed the PROD has elsewhere cited WP:PROD#Objecting today. But that standard (not a guideline or a policy) indicates that he was (emphasis added) "encouraged, but not required, to ... Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.... [and] Consider improving the article to address the concerns raised."--Epeefleche (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)