Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Danielsen

Vanity. RickK 20:03, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Related articles are fellow band members Derek Gledhill and Ryan Martin, and their band, Smile Empty Soul. But I am not sure they should be deleted, they get lots of google hits, fx MTV. I am sure somebody who knows more about music than me will come by and correct us :). Thue | talk 21:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Wow, isn't this a steaming helping of "I don't care"! Okay, sarcastic jab aside, these people, IMO, are not famous enough to warrant inclusion; I don't think Wikipedia is the place to profile every up-and-coming wannabe Puddle of Mudd. Besides, it's so much like a profile and not an article. Does Ryan like long walks along the beach? I dunno, let's read the profile! Mike H 21:34, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• I'm abstaining, at least for now. They seem to pass the Google litmus test, they're a signed band and even the website looks rather professional. Admittedly, the bios look like something out of a teenage fanzine, but that's up to the cleanup page if these stay. - Lucky 6.9 21:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Professionally signed band, has produced albums, MTV.com has a profile of them (and two "news" articles)...this is a sterling example of why vanity pages aren't candidates for speedy deletion. Keep, list on cleanup. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. Unremarkable pop band. Another one for the fan sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Might be a professionally signed band with a worldwide release, but the article is useless. If not cleaned up by the end of the VFD voting period, delete. Average Earthman 12:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I like that. Clean them all up or toss them out. This isn't Tiger Beat. - Lucky 6.9 16:34, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with Average Earthman. Delete if not cleaned up. Thue | talk 19:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - they are clearly famous - we don't delete articles on valid topics because people can't be bothered to sort them out. Secretlondon 23:07, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • My reasoning is that starting from scratch is easier than rewriting. I don't think we should be obliged to cleanup anything somebody took 2 minuttes to paste into wikipedia. Thue | talk 13:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Just because they aren't yet in normal Wikipedia format is no reason to delete. Keep and cleanup. SWAdair | Talk 03:49, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• After a bit of thought, I'd rather see these cleaned up. Keep and move to cleanup page. Maybe someone with knowledge of the band and a CD or two can cull something from the liner notes. The website is a bit sparse. - Lucky 6.9 05:51, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• so if I wanted to write something about them if I find enough info can I? well of course I've never written an article and I'll have to learn the format but they really shouldnt be redirected to their band cuz really their band isnt them, and earlier some idiot said their a pop band and atleast to me theres a big difference between pop and good music, I mean alternative rock. jwlx 21:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)