Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Tomlinson (2nd nomination)

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 speedy redirect to One Direction and protect the redirects. There is no justification for overriding the result of the previous AfD after so short a time. Any appeal should be made at WP:Deletion review, but off-site canvassing and SPA activity will not help there, either. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Tomlinson[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: Re-creation of previously deleted articles. Pop singers who aren't individually notable outside their group. Any minor notable details can be, is they aren't already, edited into One Direction. Can I suggest that the closing moderator protect the articles from re-creation? SplashScreen (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect. I see no need for a second AfD so soon - nothing has changed since the very recent last one, and these can simply be re-reverted to redirects. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also recommend protecting these redirects, as we are just going to have new sets of fanboys every few weeks recreating the individual articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect and protect per above. The articles all repeat the same info, so nothing will be lost. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these pages are are better and more detailed, members section is overgrown Isy1995 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by "more detailed" you mean "all five state the same damn thing", then yeah. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What has changed to enhance their individual notability in their own rights (outside of the band) since the last consensus? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of it is painful reading Niall Horan#Personal life, just sound bites for the press. None of the band are notable outside of it. There are plenty of blog sites that can used to post this "information" on, but its mainly unencyclopaedic. Murry1975 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEEP this isn't right do the guy or gal above every article states different early, personal, influences they're not the same people and this is way better than the member section since there way for individual points of view and more detail on individual lives. The members section is gone on the main page so the "same" is gone since the section is gone! + it is better the main page should go about one direction as a group you should not have these weird members sections Flickrphotogod (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Flickrphotogod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Above is the fanboy's, I mean user's, first edit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- I personally think they are very notable by themselves, The members section of the band is getting way too overcrowded! We could add way more details on each member if they have their own pages, and at least that way it won't be overcrowded, They have over 2 million followers for each twitter, I think they are notable enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by XDITZRACHEL (talk • contribs) — XDITZRACHEL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment. It appears the fans are canvassing off-wiki. See User talk:XDITZRACHEL...

"Hey bad news the articles are up for deletion again like before. This time tell every directioner you know(twitter, facebook tumblr) tell them make wikipedia account and go to the pages>>> click this article's entry and write why the page should stay !!! #STRESSED

I just posted it on twitter and tumblr for you, i will tweet seperate people to do it too, they look really good by the way!" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that canvassing or meatpuppetry? Murry1975 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)I don't know why you are posting that, it has no relevance. There are still loads of info on each member, that haven't been added yet, you could delete some of the info in the members section on the one direction page, and keep it on the individual's pages. I know lots of info that hasn't even been added yet.[reply]

If there is off-wiki canvassing going on, then it is very relevant to this discussion. (By the way, you should put your signature at the end of your comments, not at the start - see the way everyone else does it). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. The "number of members is growing and we'll need separate pages", or "each have XYZ million followers on Twitter" were never good reasons to keep articles like these filled with rather unencyclopedic tabloid-like information. Lynch 7 18:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Most of the info added is from their books, not tabloids.[reply]

Speedy redirect and protect - per previous AfD and lack of notability outside the band. Information can be covered in the band's article itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GUYS!! COULD EVERYONE PLEASE GO ONTO WIKIPEDIA AND MAKE AN ACCOUNT AND GO TO 1D'S PAGES AND SAY WHY THEY SHOULD STAY THEYRE GETTIN DELETED [1]. SplashScreen (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's called canvassing, and that's no good here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP i'm fan maybe you have noticed i only 1D pages mainly because i think people were missing some stuff but anyway these article are more relevant than the individual articles of cold play, maroon 5, back street boys, nysnc, big time rush members with the exclusion of Chris martin and Adam levine so this argument is already unfair and pointless. You should not comment on users as people by the way. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Will all this really go on for 7 days? I mean with the canvassing and SPAs falling from the sky. Lynch 7 18:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)May i just say, There is still loads more info that hasn't been added to these pages yet, They have only just been made. Most of the info is from their books and have been said by themselves, not by tabloids, And the members section of the one direction page will get way to messy and overcrowded if you keep putting more information on it. You could add more detail to the info if they have their own pages. And please do not post tweets i have on my personal twitter, it has no relevance here and i like to keep it private from people.[reply]

Again. Signature goes AT THE END. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter where a signature goes? I don't think so.--XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes your post look neater. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't care about making it look 'neat'. --XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indented for you. Murry1975 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, Twitter and privacy. Good one. (I respect your privacy btw, I'm not a huge fan of tweets being made public). I don't think its worth replying to this, but I'll say this: We're trying to measure their notability, not the amount of information available about them. So it really doesn't matter how much information you gather from their books, it matters whether there exists individual notability for them (i.e. do they have notability on their own in reliable sources). So if you try and present sources to satisfy that criteria, then you should be better off. (Note: People who are thought to have arrived here by canvassing are likely to be filtered out anyway). Lynch 7 18:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, public tweets can and will be read by the public and reported on. If you don't want them read, make them private. Like Mike, I'm not a big fan of tweets being made public knowledge, but if you're going to publicly post something, expect it to be discovered and potentially remarked upon. Reporting canvassing attempts is pretty standard around here. Secondly, if you're trying to get people to come to this AfD in the hopes that ballot stuffing will keep the article, then that's something that absolutely needs to be mentioned here. I'm sure it's been said already, but these things are not decided on a vote. A million fans could descend on this AfD, but unless they make a good argument per Wikipedia guidelines, those "votes" mean nothing. They could be reciting 'Mary has a little lamb' for all the good that "keep, this band is popular" arguments do, which is to mean that those types of arguments don't really do anything as far as keeping an argument goes. I've seen articles deleted even with a ton of such "keep" arguments and only 2-3 well thought out "delete" arguments. Telling people to go on here to try to sway the votes doesn't accomplish anything except that it irritates everyone involved and unless those fans are going to produce reliable sources per WP:RS, it's quite frankly a waste of your time and theirs. It doesn't accomplish anything. I highly, highly, HIGHLY recommend that you read over WP:MUSICBIO, WP:RS, and WP:AADD to see what would keep an article and what arguments should be avoided at all costs. I also recommend that you look over WP:CANVASS to see why canvassing is seen as a negative thing by many users here on Wikipedia. Sometimes it can be used to help, but when you're asking people to vote one way or another without actually asking them to back their claims up via Wikipedia or actually improve the article, that's when it's seen as a dishonest move by many. I'm trying really hard not to be too "bite the newbie", but you've really got to understand how negatively stuff like this can be seen. Getting caught canvassing and then telling people not to post the evidence of your canvassing isn't really helping you out any.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry if I don't want people on here posting MY tweets or looking at MY twitter. Some of you are being extremely rude. 'New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia when they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time.' --XDITZRACHEL (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you either make your twitter private, or stop posting asking for people to come over to this discussion on twitter. Either one would solve the problem of people here looking at your twitter. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the tweet.. Nobody even looked at it anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDITZRACHEL (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a farce. Will a sysop with sufficient balls just close this and redirect the pages as per the last AfD and fully protect them please?. We don't need this wasting our time. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:54, 11 April 2012 (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.