Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Lennon


 * 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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn and no other delete votes. WjBscribe 05:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sean Lennon

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Only notable because of his father, therefore I suggest we merge with John Lennon. I'd do it myself except I think this will probably cause some debate Dave 12:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination per WP:SNOW. Dave 10:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * STRONG keey. He has achieved many things and it wiki worthy! Julia 23:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Stong Keep. So no child of someone famous can be listed on their own, no matter what? Sean has distinguished himself on his own. Is he famous because of his father? Of course, but he's also established himself as an artist in his own right with a significant recording career. (And I feel it must be said--I am actually not a fan of his music, but I think this AfD nom is nonsensical. Articles shouldn't be deleted just because you don't like their music). Freshacconci 12:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:MUSIC by virtue of albums and writing/producing work Jules1975 13:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep!!! Why should this be deleted?warpozio 14:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see how this could even be nominated. WP:N is already clearly satisfied in the article. Whether or not he became notable because of his father is irrelevent. The fact is that he is notable, and that's all we care about. — coe l acan t a lk  — 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable, sourced and referenced Alf photoman 16:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - while of course I assume good faith in this nomination, it is a little hard to understand how one could think he is only notable because of his father. That would be like nominating Sophia Coppola or George W. Bush for deletion - perhaps they got where they are because of their parents, but they're still notable. - Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 16:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. For that matter, are we going to delete the pages for Zak, Stella and Julian too? Freshacconci 17:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Probably more famous for being John Lennon's son, but has enough notability on his own to warrant an article. Charles Kinbote 18:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lennon's issue are considered notable. Astrotrain 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, a semi-public figure that has made a name for himself. Thanks, GChriss &lt;always listening&gt;  &lt;c&gt; 19:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If one were to remove all reference to his father and mother, the article would still contain plenty of info that satisfies WP:BIO. Agent 86 21:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to his parentage, there is enough 3rd party coverage showing an independent notability. SkierRMH 21:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Independently notable. I agree with DmzS that with due respect to the nominator there seems to be a little bit of WP:OSTRICH going on in this case. 23skidoo 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep He's not "just" Lennon's son, he's a musician in his own right. SFTVLGUY2 22:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. He qualifies under WP:MUSIC in his own right. --Metropolitan90 22:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep He may only be famous because of his parentage, but he has acheived notability in his own right, in addition to the information about his family. --Canley 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep He has done enough on his own to justify an independent entry. Rodparkes 02:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A seriously notable musician. Maxamegalon2000 06:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Even if you assume good faith, AfD is not the proper place for merge discussions. Resolute 07:17, 10 February 2007 (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.