Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Vansak


 * 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   delete. WP:CIVIL, guys. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Steve Vansak

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable musician Izzy007 Talk 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Slow-mo delete Let this sit for another two years to rot. It doesn't even try to assert notability and half of it was copyvio, but clearly we're in no big freaking hurry, so God forbid we should speedy anything, ever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable, not a case for speedy though. I have removed the copyvios from the text, as a result, it actually has a reference! I have a feeling someone could establish notability, its just not me. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He got awards from some non-notable music rag, ONE appearance on Letterman, got into rotation on a red link radio station that isn't notable, and the only "source" is a press release. And you call that notability??!? Wow. And the whole time I was under the impression that notability meant significant coverage in third party sources, but apparently a puffed-up PR is all we need. Why not promote it to freaking FA at this rate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you'd stop nagging me in here and on IRC then I may be able to dig up some sources to shut you up! Jenuk1985  |  Talk  02:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down, no need to get in an arguement over it. Izzy007 Talk 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't find a single source anywhere. Can you find any and prove that he's notable? 'Cause I found a big ol bupkis on Google News, and nothing but lyrics and mp3 sites on vanilla Google. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given up, I was going to improve the article, but a users immaturity is completely put me off, speedy it if you wish, I don't care anymore. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  02:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hammer, dude, you've kinda been a jerk here. There was no need to totally go off on a user because of his opinion. I never said that I could prove that he was notable, it was just a comment to get you to chill out. Izzy007 Talk 02:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why decline the speedy again? Oh yeah, because we'd rather take the slowest route possible. Yes, I'm being a jerk, because someone doesn't believe in speedy deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm through. Izzy007 Talk 03:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously though. What was so wrong about this being tagged for speedy deletion?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hammer, start acting WP:CIVIL or I will block you. Consider this your first and last warning. I don't know what's got you so riled, but you're taking it out on other editors and that's not acceptable. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question and comment Is vynil supposed to be spelled that way because it's a record? Also that reference is a press release, not independent, can't be used to establish notability per our standards.  We need to maintain our standards, they seem to be slipping constantly.  The encyclopedia is only as good as its sources. Drawn Some (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.