Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 September 11

11 September 2013
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
 * Harry Styles – Recreation allowed. –  Sandstein   09:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Procedural nomination. The page is currently a protected redirect. A new draft on Styles, independent of the previously deleted version, has been written at User:Katcalifornia/sandbox. Since the article was deleted twice, creation of a new version was made contingent on a deletion review. I don't have much of an opinion myself. Evidence for individual notability is not overwhelming, but present, including some sources focusing on him not present in the previous version. If this were a draft at WP:AFC I'd likely accept it, so I tend towards allowing creation of an article in place of the redirect. Huon (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I see 20,000 page visits a day to One Direction and the Styles section is still tiny. I'd like to know what additional content would suddenly appear in a standalone that would justify its creation. Can anyone list anything? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncertain, more information needed--the draft at User:Katcalifornia/sandbox is mostly info about the band with a little early-life stuff that's pretty much trivial. If that's a sample of what the article would look like it's probably best to leave it as a redirect.  The question that needs to be asked is this: what reliably-sourced, non-trivial information would go into a Harry Styles article that wouldn't go into any other article, such as the One Direction band article? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 *  Maintain Redirect  - I see nothing in the draft article that would establish that a standalone article is justified at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow recreation - I'm comfortable with this being recreated. -- Whpq (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maintain Redirect - Styles is yet to attract any real coverage independent of his band, other than the routine childhood stuff. The only member of the band who has any independent notability is Louis Tomlinson AFAIK, and that's due to his stunt with signing for Doncaster Rovers F.C. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow Creation -- While I agree that the article draft is fairly bare bones, my understanding was that once the article was up it would be all right to rely on additional contributions to flesh it out, and I think Styles is notable enough on his own for that to happen. Some possible content would be his widely-reported relationships, particularly with older women (speculation about his relationship with Taylor Swift continues more than eight months after their alleged break up),  , and (more valuably), his relationship with his intensely committed fan following -- reaching out to a terminally ill fan,  accepting and prominently wearing a necklace given to him by a fan,  defending fans to the press, etc. It's also interesting to note that Styles has more Twitter followers (currently 16.3 million) than the official One Direction account (currently 15.1 million) and than any other member of One Direction (Niall Horan is currently the second most-followed, with 14.3 million)    . Prominent entertainment news outlets have recognized him as an individual as well, with Styles making a GQ list of most stylish men and a Guardian blog singling him out as capable of inspiring new style trends. Additionally, Styles has recently had to respond to rumors that he has recorded solo work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katcalifornia (talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow recreation without prejudice to a subsequent AfD. A good faith user wants to create an article in this space, and it's clearly not an attempted end-run around a previous consensus or anything else DRV should be interested in.  We aren't the article police.  The correct venue for a discussion at this level of detail is AfD.  Also, if we were at AfD I would find Katcalifornia's sources convincing.— S Marshall  T/C 11:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't find them convincing at all. The Twitter sources are obviously out straight away. Sources 1 and 19 is for the band first and foremost; some of the others may be (just covering things he's done whilst in the band, not a lot else). A lot of the other coverage is gossipy stuff surrounding his relationship with Taylor Swift, which is not encyclopedically notable on its own, only for fluffing out an article. Most of the remaining stuff is either unreliable, of questionable reliability, or pretty damn routine. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are people notable for nothing but "gossipy stuff"; that's not much of a rationale. I'm pretty sure gossip about you or me wouldn't make the newspapers. So arguably Styles must be notable if reliable sources such as the LA Times or the Telegraph publish gossip about him. Huon (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He's notable, obviously, but he's notable for one thing; being part of a band. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Maintain redirect. He is only notable for being in One Direction. Band members don't get articles just because they're in notable bands. Styles has not done any solo projects of any type, or anything else outside of One Direction. – anemone projectors – 13:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow recreation This discussion seems procedurally obnoxious as the tiny DRV attendance shouldn't be gatekeepers for a topic as well-known as this. I see this guy's name in the press all the time though I haven't paid any attention to it before now.  Looking, I find that numerous book-length biographies have already been written about this person such as Harry Styles, Harry Styles, Harry Styles, and more.  The idea that this person is not notable and there's nothing to be said about him is a joke - he is clearly up there with Lady Gaga, Prince Harry, Justin Bieber and the rest of the celebrity circus.  They don't come any more notable than this. Warden (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Where would you prefer the discussion be held instead? I'd expect it to get more attention here than on the redirect's talk page or WP:RFPP. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The topic here is a blue link and so the issue is protection, not deletion. WP:RFPP states, "Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article."  Note that the article in question now is not the article about the band but is instead List of One Direction members.  That is not just a list nor just about the band but is five separate BLPs forced together.  This puts details such as the divorce of Styles' parents alongside Payne's faulty kidney and the acting career of Tomlinson's sisters.  This treatment seems unnatural and derogatory, failing to show proper respect to living people who are separate individuals, each with their own personal and family history.


 * If we look at the talk page for that article, we see that there was a discussion started in April, in which there is already a developing consensus that the people should have separate pages. If we look at the XfD discussion linked above, which this DRV is nominally about, we see that the result was not to redirect to a list page but to redirect to the page about the band.  That result has effectively been overturned already somehow.  And what's even more grotesque is that, in the case of that individual, there's already a large separate page too: Louis Tomlinson!  So, why are we playing favourites with these band members!?   DRV seems to be quite incompetent in deciding this matter because, until I got here, no-one seems to have bothered to check out the details of this case. But I suppose we should count our blessings that the matter didn't go to ANI instead, where someone would probably have been blocked by now for good measure.


 * As we already have several active pages about these band members, the draft which has been prepared in a sandbox should not be given any special priority. All that's needed is to lift protection from the redirects and let normal editing resume.  If I were editing, I would start by splitting the list per WP:SPLIT and then redirect the list to the main article about the band, which only has five members and so doesn't need a separate article to list their names. Warden (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of Louis Tomlinson, he's generated his own notability with his Doncaster Rovers publicity stunt(s), so your argument that we're "playing favourites" is incorrect. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The favouritism seems to be the special treatment given to footballers who get articles regardless of whether there's actually significant coverage of them as a person. It's ludicrous. Warden (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Allow Recreation - I know nothing about 'tween stars, but googling this kid shows quite a lot of TMZ-style coverage not directly connected to the band. As much disdain I have for pop culture, I find it hard to deny there's a plethora of sources to support a standalone article. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow re-creation I find myself agreeing with Tarc more than I used to, and when he and Warden agree on a position ,it obviously has a lot to be said for it :). I have almost no awareness about the subject, but common sense is to let an recreation be at least attempted.  DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow recreation If you've got multiple books written about you, you are by definition (WP:N) notable. Given all the sources, this isn't close. And to argue he's only notable for being in the band, so?  There are tons of articles on athletes only notable for playing on a single professional team...  That's not a BLP1E issue.  Oyi. Hobit (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow re-creation. As User:Warden noted above, a search on Google Books shows that several book-length biographies have been written about Harry Styles. A subject can't get more notable than this.
 * Styles' notability might have initially stemmed from being a member of One Direction, but since then he has become a celebrity with millions of fans. As per WP:ENTERTAINER, one criterion for determining notability of celebrities is "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", and Styles certainly satisfies that. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Allow recreation Like it or not, this is probably the most talked-about band on the planet for the past year and I'm sure there are hundreds of articles that have been written about the members and probably quite a few books. For the many, many fans of the band who visit their page, the members are distinct individuals with Styles having the biggest public profile. If this group isn't notable, I'm not sure what pop stars are.  Liz  Read! Talk! 19:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing the group. One Direction are clearly notable. But Styles is only notable for being in that group, and we have a list of members where information can be included - though I expect anything that isn't already included in the list entry will be trivia. A new article won't expand on that list entry or the One Directoin article - as User:Katcalifornia/sandbox clearly shows. – anemone projectors – 19:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that your argument is policy-based. Do you agree the subject meets our inclusion guidelines?  Both the general, WP:N, and the specific, WP:ENT,would seem easily met. Hobit (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lots of subjects meet N because it's so general. ENT is more specific, but most specific and pertinent is BAND: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Doesn't that trump the first two because it directly speaks about band members? Plus, as a standalone, shouldn't we expect disputes over inclusion of bits of content considered too trivial by some --content that would never be allowed in the parent article? So again, where's the content beyond what's in the parent article now? I see no solos and nothing beyond wearing a fan's necklace. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You've got it backwards - the WP:GNG trumps all specialised notability guides. And it's easy to find counter-examples to your theory about WP:BAND - people such as Kurt Cobain who obviously have articles separate from their band Nirvana because of the great interest in them personally.  The biographies about Harry Styles are huge - 256 pages, for example, and so there's not the slightest difficulty finding material.  It's because of nonsense like this that notability is not a policy.  It's just a rough guideline and so is supposed to be used with common-sense, not pettifogging prohibition. Warden (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Backwards do I? Oh dear. I always thought that it was the other way around. I thought that's why specialized guidelines exist.


 * My theory? That's a quote from the guideline, not my theory.


 * You can call Cobain a counter-example but it can also be called otherstuffexisting.


 * If there is good content in those 256 pages, that's fine. I'm all for it. That's why we are here discussing it. We want to know. In fact, if the book is really that long, then the standalone should do fine. Of course, I'm still curious why the parent article gets 10k visitors a day and still only contains a paragraph when such a long resource book is out there.


 * Pettifogging? I had to look that one up. I'm not trying to pettifog, and I'm not prohibiting. Note that I haven't taken the Maintain Redirect position. I'm discussing. I'm asking questions. Note the question marks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you're notable in a general way, then you don't need to worry about the specialised cases. This is basic: "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below."  Those basic criteria are that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."  Harry Styles has clearly been the specific subject of such sources because it's his name that appears in their titles, not the band's.  This is a simple way of discerning the difference - look at the title.  Warden (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly true. The very next sentence says Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP1E and WP:NOT are policies and so would override the notability guideline. But they are not applicable here. Warden (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence does not say only BLP1E and WP:NOT. It says "...exclusionary criteria, such as..." and WP:BAND is such. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the history of that clause in WP:BAND but it is not followed consistently - see Brian Jones for another example. My impression is that it's just a local consensus which will not stand when when it reaches the eyes of the general community such as we have here, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."  Harry Styles is now not just a band member - he is a celebrity and the coverage of him is about his personal life, not just his musical activities in that ensemble.  He should therefore be considered as a distinct person in that context, not as a mere component in some musical machine. It seems apparent that some editors dislike the subject and so seek to stifle coverage by treating him with contempt.  Per WP:BLPSTYLE, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects". Warden (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that you're casting aspersions about people without a shred of evidence, and towing the line of making personal attacks. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * When refuted, you seem to just abandon the argument and jump to a thinner argument. The Brian Jones argument is otherstuffexists. You then cite BLPSTYLE which is not about notability. Your last argument is that "...he is a celebrity and the coverage of him is about his personal life..." but where is the content about his personal life that's not trivia? Isn't that the crux? Isn't this what we're trying to determine here to help decide what to do?


 * Anyway, my friend, I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye. I can see reasons for and against a standalone and it won't be a catastrophe either way. I have no feeling about the subject. Sure, I anticipate bickering over the triviality of introduced content, but that's fine. The article will fill out and be of use to visitors very soon anyhow and he'll probably do something aside from the band eventaully.


 * But what really interests me--and I'm just trying to learn here--is which supersedes which: GNG or the more specific guidelines? I always thought that it was a case of GNG unless XXX negates. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've certainly always taken the stance that it's GNG unless XXX negates, otherwise we would only need GNG and there would be no additional criteria. WP:BASIC says "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." "May" meaning it's not always the case and therefore the additional criteria should be applied. In this case that is WP:MUSICBIO. Styles is not a solo artist and criteria 1-13 apply to One Direction, not it's members. "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles". In fact they're not usually given a "list of members" article but in this case we do have one. – anemone projectors – 13:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Darn tootin'! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, now I understand where your !votes about not being notable separately from the band come from. Thanks for clarifying.  I'd make a few arguments:
 * First, as noted above, the relationship between the GNG and SNG isn't very unclear. And in this case we have (arguably) conflicting SNGs (WP:BAND and WP:ENT) so things get fun quickly.  In general, if there is a fair bit of reliable coverage  on the subject and it doesn't clearly violate WP:NOT we will nearly always allow an article on the subject.  In this case, a massive number of news articles and multiple books would clearly be over that bar.
 * I'd note that the part of WP:BAND you are quoting says "...unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." While one might wish to argue that "notability for activity independent of the band" must mean something "important", notability is just coverage (per WP:N. And given he's got massive coverage for just walking around places, I'd say his activity has clearly been noted.  That's not intended as sarcasm.  Notability is about sources, and he's got them. Those sources cover much more than just him playing in the band (though they cover him because of the band).  So he's notable (has been noted) outside of the band.
 * In general we should have articles on people/topics who we can write articles about (using reliable and independent sources) and where that coverage doesn't violate WP:NOT. Here, there really isn't a problem doing so. My 2 cents!Hobit (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Since some are confused, let me quote the top of the page at Notability. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.  A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right."  See?  Simple.  You just have to meet one guideline, not both.  This is because sometimes people can be notable even without coverage of them.  A scientist who didn't do interviews but won notable awards for what they accomplished, is notable, even if he isn't interesting enough for the media to write about.    D r e a m Focus  22:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm confused. I'm seeing conflicting guidelines. Surely you are too. WP:BAND isn't part of WP:NOT. A subject can pass GNG, not violate NOT, and still be unacceptable per WP:BAND. Isn't that right? When rules contradict, is the best way really to say "A!" authoritatively, and ignore "B"? Shouldn't we acknowledge that the rules contradict and then move toward weighing things? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd call it a contradiction if there is a rule that resolves how to deal with contradictions. We've a rule that says "if A or B" so passing A is enough, yes?  That said, you are correct.  There is generally some weighing done.  Given how wildly he passes WP:N there would have to be an extremely strong reason to not have the article. Given he clearly has coverage unrelated to the band (Taylor Swift being one clear example), I don't think WP:BAND even really applies, let along strong applies. Hobit (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The guidelines all tell us that they should not be treated as rigid rules, "...a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." We also have the general principle that we should ignore all rules when they are getting in the way of building the encyclopedia.  One easier way to consider this issue is to see what Britannica does.  They have a substantial entry Harry Styles.  They also have entries for the other band members such as Niall Horan.  It is therefore obvious that we should too.  If a guideline says otherwise then it's that that needs to be changed because it is not a law, "written rules do not themselves set accepted practice." Warden (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I get it now. Thank you all for your patience. It's been a learning experience. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Maintain redirect - WP:BAND states that "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". As of now, none of the members of 1D have received coverage that does not stem from them being in 1D. Another editor brought up tattoos - and the argument is that "well he was covered for his tattoos". However, would he have ever been covered for his tattoos if he wasn't in 1D? Are you or me covered for that? Nope. Thus, I come to the conclusion that the coverage of Mr. Stiles that is of him as a person not of 1D as a band is all stemming from his involvement in 1D, providing not enough significant coverage of him independent of his involvement in the band. ~ Charmlet -talk- 18:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Allow recreation Massive coverage on his own. He got ample coverage for dating Taylor Swift, and would've gotten it no matter who he was.  But whatever made him famous doesn't matter now.  He gets ample coverage that doesn't involve his band or his ex-girlfriend.  We go by what the WP:GNG says not personal opinions.   D r e a m Focus  19:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow creation: This individual meets the notability requirements for a stand-alone article. He meets the criteria in WP:COMPOSER #3 where as he has written the lyrics that were used as the basis of a song by the band, which is notable on its own. He also meets the requirement for WP:GNG in that there are reports and stories about him in multiple capacities: Member of One Direction, has a solo recording (Don't Let Me Go!) released/leaked online, and is the object of a song written by another artist of which he was previously in a relationship with (although WP:NOTINHERITED may apply here, it is a contributing factor in a greater set of circumstances). Technical 13 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow recreation per Tarc. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow recreation The guidelines all contradict each other, so they're no use. They always go "Mom says it's okay and Dad says don't listen to Mom." I want to see the standalone now because Katcalifornia and others will do their best to make it valuable to visitors. Sooner or later the subject will crash a Ferarri or say something shocking to the Queen or maybe put out a solo record. And, I've just got to see what's in this 256-page book. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Allow recreation - passes WP:GNG without too much trouble at all. If you have a book written about you (no matter how badly written), and action figures (of you, not a character you played and not sold as a "five pack" of 1D members), and magazine covers, and newspaper articles, and tabloid articles and television shows... then you're probably notable. There are whole magazines dedicated to the band - pretty safe to assume that at least some of those profile members individually, without references to other members of the band. WP:BAND is important, but at some stage we have to be realistic about whether it can be practically applied to a "band" like One Direction where each member is going to have their activities constantly chronicled by news media whether they are with their band mates or not. In the middle of a bushfire crisis, a football drug scandal, a bikie war and an election week, national television news in Australia went into meltdown at the suggestion he might be in Melbourne. That same week, Australia's ambassador to China, Frances Adamson, visited Tibet for the first time (the first official visit since 2010) - didn't rate a mention. The Game arrived in Sydney that same week and Charley Pride announced his first tour of Australia in years. Neither got a run, certainly not on national prime-time news. Stalwart 111  04:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

reflist

 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }