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. John254 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A wonderful advertisement for the subject which would be right at home in a fan-wiki or directory, but disastrously fails our WP:NPOV policy, presumably because it was written by the suject's publicist (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winifred Whitfield). Subject is probably notable, but this article is horribly POV and we'd be better off with a completely fresh start per WP:FORGET. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubify if needed, but Keep. Subject is notable, and WP:FORGET isn't a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Notability is there but, the article definitely needs to be rewritten though and better referencing is essential. I'm sure some of the stuff here [1] would help. It may even be reasonable to revert back to the extremely shorter version that existed b4 a particular editor became involved. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's WP:COI and all, but meets WP:BAND. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article meets notability, and doesn't appear to be an advertisement to me. Could use some cleanup and editing, but there is a difference between style and notability--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is so glowing I could warm my hands over it in winter. Weak keep as having some notability established, but it needs a) more sources to back up some of the claims, and b) a blunt object applied to beat out the promotional language that infuses it all the way through. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs cleaning up, not deleting.--Michig (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What the nomination says. If Bell deserves a good article, he'll get one; it would be very different from this. If you think that this article could and should be rewritten, go ahead and rewrite it; I'll keep it on my watchlist and am willing to reconsider my vote here. -- Hoary (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC) ....... OK, keep. I'm still suspicious about some of this; still, a lot of what's in it is good enough, and Bell merits an article, if not the one that he seems to have paid for. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, not quite done. Consider this subsequent edit of mine. And once I know the original article was paid-for advertising, everything about it becomes deeply suspect. I hope you are, or somebody is, checking those references. I also have great doubts about the article-worthiness of at least two of his albums, and about the way in which the albums are written up (again by a PR person rather than disinterested editor). -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm already planning on AfDing those albums after this AfD closes. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix, at least, could probably be spared, as I've found several reviews listed in ProQuest (although most are just abstracts, unfotunately). Zagalejo^^^ 01:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could be kept, also because a slew of notable people played on it. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMdB lists one of the broadcast appearances along with another which is not mentioned in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited a couple of newspaper articles that weren't written by Kevin Avery. I got them through ProQuest. Zagalejo^^^ 01:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - unlike the creators other spam, this one is ok. pov is not a reason for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has been cleaned up by Gwen Gale. Nice work. Zagalejo^^^ 22:32, 18 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.