Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Tomlinson


 * 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   redirect to One Direction. v/r - TP 20:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Louis Tomlinson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Singer of questionable individual notability. Provided references are primarily about the group One Direction, not the individual. Little apparent notability outside the band or The X Factor (UK series 7) - per discussions such as Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 7, I tried redirecting to the main band article, but page creator kept reverting, so bringing this here for definitive resolution. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As this also applies to similar articles about members of this band, I am also nominating these for the same reasons: MikeWazowski (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep these pages are a great improvement and in removing the the huge and hideous members section it think it's great. They're personal lives will only keep growing you don't want a members section that's HUGE. main page should be about One Direction only as group. It could be a good improvement. User:isy1995 talk comment added 17:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

*Keep Individual Pages i think these pages are up for deletion because they all sing. when you look at other bands coldplay & Maroon 5 all members have individual pages while only the lead singers are notable which only strengthens the fact that One direction members are worthy of these pages which only contain personal and individual info. User:AdabowtheSecond (talk comment added 21:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC).
 * You have already !voted, below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Individual Pages As they are in their first year as a band, they have yet to gain notoriety individually, yet based on pure talent and "star-quality" it is inevitable that they will.  Musically, all endeavors will most likely remain band efforts, however they will be taking on more, such as Harry's newly signed modeling contract and Louis' up and coming line of boating wear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Dfacts (talk • contribs) 05:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)  — 1Dfacts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia doesn't predict the future - if they gain individual notability (notoriety is not necessary!) in the future then they will qualify for individual articles -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete All individual pages should be deleted. If needed, each individual member can have a brief paragraph of personal details and achievements if any on the group page werldwayd (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all then redirect. Agree with nom that individuals are not notable. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 01:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It should stay take the coldplay members as example except for chris martin the rest aren't notable. Yes these articles need work but they are not worthy of deletion, you don't want the member section to over grow with info maybe it should be shortened down to just early, personal life and only individual info. User:AdabowtheSecond (talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete and redirect to One Direction. Tomlinson has not released any of his own songs, everything has been done with One Direction.  Suggest re-directing the page to One Direction, should he release any of his own songs in the future we can always take it off re-direct.--5 albert square (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to One Direction. I can't find sources that demonstrate individual notability. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 03:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

These articles are now edited for only individual info. these articles may not seem much now but let them grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdabowtheSecond (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Pages must stay. These boys are making a statement in the world and impacting many people. They are gaining popularity quickly all around the world and their pages will need to be filled soon because they will be achieving great things. Each member is equally important in the group and should  be given a page to show each one's accomplishments and genuine qualities that I know people such as teen girls care about.   HAIRY-STYLES | TUMBLR   06:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC) — Hairy-styles (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Revert to redirects as none of them are notable outside of the band. – anemone projectors – 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the band article, as none of them are notable outside of the band. A summary of each could be added to the band's article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that they should be kept because these boys are now part of a famous band and people have the right to learn about them. They should be able to share their story with the rest of the world.I feel that each person has enough written about them to make it worth having a page that tells people who they are. Also they are growing in popularity which means as time progresses they will have more information to be added about them which means it would be pointless to delete these profiles when they will only be remade in a few weeks or months time. It would be far more efficient to keep the current pages and then just keep them up to date as time passes. --penfold97 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penfold97 (talk • contribs)  — Penfold97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If a baby had a birth certificate and an article written about them in a newspaper, that doesn't mean they deserve their own Wikipedia article, it means that they're a human that is most likely irrelevant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.97.90 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In no way should these pages be delted. Individually and as a whole, One Direction is a popular band and continues to gain popularity on a daily basis. If either of these pages got deleted, I'd be happy to provide a list of other pages that should be as well. Because a Wikipedia page on anal piercing is stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.138.142 (talk) — 71.194.138.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, as a whole, One Direction is most definitely notable - nobody is suggesting deleting that article! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to band article. No individual notability.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to band article. As an avid, avid, AVID music fan, I took a look to see how much info I could uncover on all of them. BBC, LastFM, Rolling Stone, Billboard, Spin (and others) have no info on any of them except for DOB, appeared on X-Factor and are members of One Direction. I have no doubt whatsoever their popularity will continue to grow and eventually, one or more will be featured in a major music publication or major tabloid. For now however, they are not notable individually. Ken Tholke (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to band article. None of these individuals is notable enough to have an article each. Angelikfire (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to One Direction, not notable enough to warrant separate articles for all of the band members. Anything useful in these could be easily merged into the main article or re-added by other editors later. dalahäst (let's talk!) 07:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect all to One Direction per above, no need to repeat the same things.Cavarrone (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I may be against the trend here, but these lads seem to be covered by Entertainers #2 Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. A simple Google search shows plenty of fan interest in them as individuals, not just the activities of the band. One might argue the interpretation of what it means to be "encyclopaedic", however that is a question for the definition of the notability criteria rather than these biographic articles. --Fæ (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't know much at all about this musician, but we need to be conscious of setting a precedent. If we remove this page, why not remove members of most bands - who generally aren't notable? I think we should keep and ask for improvements to the article. This individual also passes Wikipedia's Entertainers guidelines. --Filastin (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Entertainer's guidelines makes them "iffy" IMHO, as "significant cult following" is rather subjective. Using the Musician's guidelines makes things a bit more clear-cut I think. Ken Tholke (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep notable as a member of One Direction, the article states they have had a UK #1 single, #2 album and winners of a Brit Award12bigbrother12 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Over 25,000 people had a helping hand with Apollo 11 making it to the moon and back, should we have an article for each one of them simply because they were part of that group?. Where does the line get drawn? The nomination (the article has a "page not found" associated with one of its 3 references, btw), tha award, the chart position are all for the group, not the individuals. Ken Tholke (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to One Direction, per nom. No individual notability. -Cntras (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect because it's still seem irrelevant for them outside the One Direction and basically they share the same news professionally so it makes nothing different if they just has one wiki page.--Syukri Abd Rahman (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that members One Direction are already known enough as their own person rather than fully associated with the group. They are known in countries around the world and these pages would prove to attract a lot of traffic. I also agree that there needs to be constancy among bands and their members having pages and I firmly believe that the average person is more accustomed to the members of One Direction than of other bands whose members have individual pages. Pippabobby (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect all. No evidence of notability outside of One Direction, so I don't see the need for any of them to have stand-alone articles. Obviously, that would change if any of them release solo albums or start doing other significant work outside the band (e.g., TV acting). —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep All members of notable bands deserve to have personal pages. With one Brit Award under their belt already, One Direction is a notable group. In addition, their career is just beginning, soon enough there will me more unique and personal information to add. Lindzey21 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Lindzey21 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete and install redirects for all members to One Direction, due to insufficient notability to have stand-alone articles. Till I Go Home (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to One Direction. None of them have done anything other than the band and all are failed solo artists who were rejected by X Factor. All the information on these pages is repeated on the main One Direction page. Yids2010 (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect all No significant individual notability. Of course these may become proper articles in the future after the band splits and they go solo. Bazonka (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect no individual notability.  ×º°”˜ `”°º× ηυηzια  ×º°”˜ `”°º×  23:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to One Direction for all 5 band members. The fact that they are gaining popularity is not relevant, they have no notability outside of their own band and The X Factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.97.90 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect and/or protect from re-creation: for all the aforementioned reasons. Not notable. Jared Preston (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Each member already has around two million followers on twitter, suggesting a huge fanbase. If you had bothered to do full research you would see that there has already been significant media interest in the members' individual lives. Furthermore, they are a big part of today's teen culture, one of the main demographics of wikipedia. Despite your own ignorance to their popularity, the members have idividual support outside the group including support from their individual youtube channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.227.49 (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC) — 86.130.227.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: A google search of "Harry Styles" gives 41,300,000 results. Certainly seems notable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12bigbrother12 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 February 2012‎
 * Rebuttal A google search of 12bigbrother12 gave 15,400 results. Is that indicitive of your popularity and fanbase? Of course it isn't. So why should 41,300,000 predominantly unchecked results be a major factor here? Ken Tholke (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to add, a Google search of Harry Styles (in quotes) excluding the phrases "X Factor," "One Direction," "Louis,", "Zayne", "Liam" and "Naill" gives less than 5,000 hits, and it's easy to see very few have to do with this Harry Styles. What should we draw from that if we apply your reasoning that hits on Google is a valid measuring stick? That 12bigbrother12 is more popular than Harry Styles? You cannot rely heavily on Google algorithms to tell the story here. Ken Tholke (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2012 (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.