Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Hasselvander
- 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, though I urge a speedy improvement of the article, since it does look pretty shoddy. Wizardman 15:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Hasselvander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This individual may or may not deserve an article but regardless of that, this isn't it; it is irredeemably bad. It is written in the present tense and every single sentence ends in an exclamation mark. It is unreferenced and includes gems such as "Joe H. was off to England to play in the infamous ‘Hard Rock Hell” festival at the Butlins resort", which leads me to suppose it's not genuine. Ros0709 (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment an article being poorly written is not a reason to delete it, it is a reason to improve it. Yes, it looks silly... is it reliable? is it notable? Those are the questions we should be concerned with here. If it's just the content, fix it--don't delete it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More Comments Thanks for the note on my talk page, Ros! Yes, the article is bad isn't it! BUT "I don't want to fix it" is not grounds to delete an article. If the only article on Abraham Lincoln was really bad, then should we delete that? NO! The purpose of a Wiki (or at least one of the purposes of this wiki) is to take the bad and make it better to best through collaboration.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep WP:RUBBISH is not a reasonable guideline. Yes, the article's quality is awful, but there seems to be enough notability, as he appeared in multiple bands. IRK!Leave me a note or two 20:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, my vote is not on the basis of the article's poor quality. The subject fails to meet notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. His former band appears to have some sort notability, Pentagram (band) but the artist fails to meet individual notability. Being in a notbale band is not a criteria for article creation, as per WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. I can only find two mentions in reliable media [1] [2] which only mention his name within the context of the band. I have struggled to find notability in many of his other bands. As such, I believe the article should be deleted. Rasadam (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject is notable; the article merely needs a strong rewrite. Joe Hasselvande has been a member of several bands, two of which are notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia: Pentagram and Raven. He has also released three solo albums, securing news coverage such as this. Give the article time for improvement. --Bardin (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The article is poorly sourced, but seems to make a prima facie case for notability through Mr. Hasselvander's work in multiple notable bands. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Bad writing is irrelevant to whether the subject is notable. But I need to rely upon others to say whether the work is notable. DGG (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that poor style is no reason per se to delete. However, it did indicate that the article was perhaps not to be believed; the quote cited in the nomination reinforced the impression that the article was not serious. The style has been improved since nomination but I still have serious concerns about the reliability. If the article closes as keep then all but the verifiable material ought to be culled. Ros0709 (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - no reason given for deletion --T-rex 14:54, 19 July 2008 (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.