Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Hollander


 * 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 delete. I don't know why this particular AfD has brought the SPAs in droves, but given the repetition of arguments without evidence, the sockpuppetry, and the assumptions of bad faith, I haven't much option besides setting aside the !votes of any suspected SPA. The arguments that remain constitute clear consensus in favor of deletion. The number of SPAs also makes salting justifiable here. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Hollander

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Andrew Hollander is a composer and songwriter whose puffery-filled article is essentially a list of credits that are better left to IMDB. The only sources cited include a brief mention of Hollander or do not mention him at all.

Hollander has received no significant independent media attention. He was the composer for a notable film Waitress, but there is no indication that his work was notable. He has co-written or produced songs but there is no indication these songs were particularly notable, even if the songs' albums or performers might have had some press. All told, I don't believe anything in the article satisfies WP:ENT ("significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions").

In the past, there has been concern about conflicts of interest in edits to this article, since they were often by single-purpose or promotional accounts. One of the editors created the page of Hollander's wife Dana Parish, which I am also recommending be deleted. A recent dubious editor is. Another single purpose account made numerous edits and inappropriately marked many of them as minor. There were also concerns about copyright violations. There does not seem to be much interest in this article by authentic editors. Given the above, I propose deletion of this article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC) https://www.bmi.com/news/entry/andrew-hollander-talks-composing-for-words-on-bathroom-walls-with-the-chain https://www.bmi.com/news/entry/bmi_songwriter_andrew_hollander_contributes_to_celine_dions_highly_anticipa https://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=74371 DubiousPuffery (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC) This song won a Chinese Grammy! “Someday I’ll fly” G.E.M. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peXpXFYhhyY Here's another G.E.M. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ0vRcpsfCM Minecraft Dungeon Lord (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC) — Minecraft Dungeon Lord (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Film, Music, Entertainment,  and New York. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This looks more like targeted harassment of Hollander and Parish, rather than a legitimate reason to delete this page. DubiousPuffery (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — DubiousPuffery (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There are no sources for either of them that we can use, simply having their name in a list of people on an album doesn't help. He'd need a feature piece in TIME magazine for example; he's a long way from that. We aren't harassing them, we need to prove notable coverage or we can't keep the articles. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many sources sited for both Andrew Hollander and Dana Parish. Again, this clearly reads as a personal attack. There is no other reasonable explanation for someone suggesting deletion for someone and their spouse at the same time with no legitimate reason for either. magic4950 (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, All of the information on Andrew Hollander's page is accurate and current. I fail to see the issue. Andrew's page follows the same format as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lissauer. AmySEOPro (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — AmySEOPro (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It most certainly is, the issue is that there isn't enough coverage to warrant an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything on this page is well referenced and documented. Andrew Hollander has worked on many well known and high profile projects, including writing songs for Celine Dion and Carly Rae Jepsen, and working with the Chainsmokers. The suggestion for deletion is clearly a personal attack based on the language uses and has no basis. Andrew Hollander's page is perfectly legitimate and should remain on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic4950 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)  — Magic4950 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There is no personal attack, we can't find substantial coverage in reliable sources. Not everyone gets a wikipedia article just for working with famous people. They have to have been covered in a non-trivial way in reliable, neutral, sources of some substance. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources found. His name pops up in New York Magazine in 1976, but that's not him. Non-notable, lack of any sort of substantial coverage of the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant independant coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Passing mentions aren't enough. Working with notable people isn't enough as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Am not convinced meets WP:COMPOSER, but happy to be proved wrong if sufficient sourcing is found. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking own !vote as lots of new sources have been mentioned I've not had chance to look at. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep page > More coverage below of his work, which is significant and meets the standards provided by Wiki. Also, please note that the nature of a film composer, songwriter, and record producer is to collaborate with recording artists, directors, etc. This is why he is often mentioned alongside those types of artists.
 * https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/waitress-success-bittersweet-composer-139996/
 * https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/celine-dion-shows-edge-and-tries-out-new-characters-on-loved-me-5770656/
 * https://www.youredm.com/2020/08/25/words-on-bathroom-walls-soundtrack/
 * https://nysmusic.com/2021/08/18/steve-conte-to-release-new-album-bronx-cheer-new-track-out-now/
 * https://americansongwriter.com/bringin-it-backwards-interview-with-rozzi/
 * https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/moonlight-film-review-93115/
 * https://filmmusicreporter.com/tag/andrew-hollander/ magic4950 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Hollywood Reporter pieces only mention him in passing, they aren't about him. We need substantial coverage about the gentleman, not scattered mentions. The Billboard article is about Celine Dion and only mentions him in passing/in relation to her. The other sources are about the same quality. Still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, someone who works as Hollander does as a film composer, songwriter, and record producer, will almost always be mentioned along with their collaborators. This is standard across the board for those in his line of work. This is hardly a reason for page deletion. magic4950 (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And that's why he isn't notable for wikipeia. It's precisely why it's being deleted. He must have enough coverage about him specifically. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am completely baffled as to why anyone would propose removing this profile. I fell in love with Andrew's work after I saw his film Waitress and have thoroughly enjoyed his films. Why is an award winning film and music composer being attacked? I hope someone at Wikipedia investigates as this just doesn't seem right. Laurarae1966 (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC) — Laurarae1966 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The AmySEO user has been blocked for undisclosed COI, and the others you mention have also been warned over the last 4 yrs or so about such COI editing. I'd proceed with caution. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I have verified multiple references and citations and am convinced notability is met and this appears frankly to be a personal attack. For both Hollander and his wife.
 * https://variety.com/2009/film/markets-festivals/composing-a-collaborative-process-1118007651/ Crazy4science (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC) — Crazy4science (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Notable or not is a separate issue but this looks like an attack, I verified some news and events which are on Dana Parish's deletion discussion page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dana_Parish AppleBoosted (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC) — AppleBoosted (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No it's not, we're also discussing the deletion there. Same as here, we need reliable sources with enough to meet GNG or we can't keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * More reliable sources added, BMI and Variety. In my opinion the existing sources are enough to determine notability as per Wikipedia's statement on general notability guidelines. AppleBoosted (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Here are three sources with coverage about Hollander specifically.
 * All of those articles are from BMI. Andrew Hollander has a financial relationship with BMI. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hollander was described by the Hollywood Reporter as a "top screen composer" on the "cusp of A-list status." https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/how-9-top-screen-composers-147788/ in 2007, his score for 'Waitress' was called "amazing" by the president of music at 20th Century Fox, Robert Kraft in the L.A. Times the same year, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-aug-08-et-oscar8-story.html and in 2020, made the Film Music Institute's list of Best Scores of 2020. https://filmmusicinstitute.com/the-best-scores-of-2020/ ```` DubiousPuffery (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hollander was also profiled alongside his contemporaries Hans Zimmer and Michael Giacchino in Variety magazine. https://variety.com/2009/film/markets-festivals/composing-a-collaborative-process-1118007651/ DubiousPuffery (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Then it's almost too soon for him, based on the analysis of sources. Could perhaps draftify? Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And since then (2007) he's been profiled next to a-listers Zimmer and Giacchino, because he's considered on par with them career-wise. Here's one more interview profiling Hollander specifically - demonstrating again that he's quite well known in his field. https://soundtracksscoresandmore.com/2018/04/26/my-friend-dahmer-soundtrack-andrew-hollander-interview/ He's also notable enough to be listed next to Mike Birbiglia, Eartha Kitt and Ira Glass on A-Z Quotes, https://www.azquotes.com/author/79514-Andrew_Hollander and to have 111 photos, most at red carpet events, when you search Getty Images. The only issue with this article is that it hasn't been updated in a while. DubiousPuffery (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Interviews aren't used for sourcing as they're primary. Please review the RS and GNG as explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And Getty Images is only photos, not a useful source, other than perhaps confirming where he was on the day the photo was taken. AZ Quotes ins't even listed in our list of reliable sources, so we'll ignore it. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Andrew Hollander belongs on Wikipedia. Some of his work is found here: Broken Ones- This song was featured on, The Voice, Jacquie Lee’s first single > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQazvw5E77A
 * Youtube isn't a valid source either. Let it WP:SNOW apparently. No quality sources found, even less with each passing day. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep > As many have pointed out, this is clearly a personal attack and the article absolutely meets Wikipedia's requirements. Even the tone of the comments from Oaktree and Science Flyer are personal and emotional in nature. magic4950 (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No quality sources found? The L.A. Times, Variety and the Hollywood Reporter how are these not quality sources to establish notoriety? DubiousPuffery (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Quality sources yes, substantial coverage, not quite. Little bits of info that don't help with GNG, as discussed. I'm not attacking anyone, the sources presented aren't useful for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is a BIO but without any supporting sources for the biographical information. Of the cites in the article, many don't mention him at all and the rest are name-checks. Of the links given above in this discussion, only one has any substance about him . He does get name credit for composing and for producing, but not the content that would support the article. If the un-referenced material (and sources that don't mention him) were removed there would definitely not be enough left for an article. TOO SOON? Lamona (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Info This is to inform that the nominator Science Flyer is vandalizing page and associating BMI to Hollander by saying Andrew Hollander has a financial relationship with BMI which has proved his nonsense and personal agenda, he is only interested in removing the pages of both husband and wife. The page should be locked. AppleBoosted (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding to AppleBoosted's vandalism info - ScienceFlyer also removed recent edits citing credible sources that support notoriety, suppressing relevant information counter to their request for article deletion. ScienceFlyer made an unfounded statement about the president of 20th Century Fox having a "conflict of interest" to justify the removal of these citations. DubiousPuffery (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment A reminder that for AfD when considering notability the current state of the article matters less than what sources WP:NEXIST. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete – a few mentions in the press but nothing really useful for biographical purposes. Might be WP:TOOSOON.  Madeline  ( part of me ) 12:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep after seeing additions on the page and verifying references I guess the notability is met. 2603:8001:9300:9656:7C7E:ED5:68D0:F92C (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete  classic example of what happens when someone creates a Wikipedia entry for the wrong reasons. If there were enough independent coverage for a 100-word article, then the inclusionist in me would be arguing to keep this. But when yes-people synthesise content from film credits and name checks without any in-depth sources, then the page is a sitting duck for trolls. Worse, it creates the impression that our methodology is flexible or optional when, in reality, our epistemic standards are what holds Wikipedia together. Enough is enough. Let it WP:SNOW2A00:23C7:829E:7E01:5CF0:BE78:A7F7:F872 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:829E:7E01:5CF0:BE78:A7F7:F872 (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Insisting that there isn't enough significant coverage for notability is strange given all the examples submitted at this point in the AfD discussion - it seems to be a technique to get people not to actually bother to read the sources and pretend Hollander is either not mentioned/only mentioned in passing. DubiousPuffery (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We have analyzed them, they aren't terribly useful, as explained. There isn't much left to find. No one is attacking him here, you being the only one that keeps saying it's happening. I don't know the fellow and don't particularly care who he is or what he does. We're reviewing the quality of the sources used to see if they warrant having an article in Wikipedia. We've yet to see any that can help support keeping it. Oaktree b (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Others besides me have pointed out the same. If you aren't familiar with the controversy surrounding the topic of Hollander's spouse's book, then you can be forgiven for not understanding that this nominator is clearly someone who is involved in that ugliness, and Hollander has been caught in the middle. I disagree that the articles linked have not supported notoriety. The Variety article combined with the Hollywood Reporter and L.A. Times constitute substantial coverage, and not just a glancing mention. DubiousPuffery (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ok, show me three in-depth features in one of the sources listed at wp:RSP and I will change my vote to keep.2A00:23C7:829E:7E01:5CF0:BE78:A7F7:F872 (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Yikes, this discussion is a mess with all the single-purpose (and potential sockpuppet) accounts. However, after reviewing the sources listed and doing a search on my own, I'm afraid there just isn't enough coverage for Andrew Hollander (which is a shame considering his fairly notable work). I did find it somewhat ironic that his bio on his website has a disclaimer stating that it was copied from Wikipedia. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:COMPOSER criteria #4 which states “Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers”. Hollander was the composer of Emmy award winning TV show on HBO’s A Child's Garden Of Poetry which make him pass this criterion. In addition to this, his notable work is quite well covered in The Hollywood Reporter and Variety news website. Huberfna (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources for the win, that's part of the issue here, that we can't find sources to support notability. It would go a long way to supporting "keeping" the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep:ScienceFlyer who has nominated this article for deletion and has made multiple bold edits without consensus, appears to have a COI with the subject of this article and his spouse, Dana_Parish, whose article he has also nominated for deletion. This pattern of marking the articles of a couple for deletion and then editing heavily to try to enforce this suggests a personal vendetta of some kind. Tartletvertex (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG as he had been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, also added four more sources. well-referenced. Don't agree with nom and seems like targeted attack. Losovefa (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Based on the additional sources combined, there's probably enough to just about meet WP:GNG (I'm less familar with WP:COMPOSER, but that should be considered), however I am concerned about the number of seemingly single-purpose accounts involved and wonder if there has been some WP:CANVASSING going on off-wiki somewhere. This is certainly not a case for WP:SNOW as two editors mentioned. I also find the amount of talk of personal attacks concerning. This is the place to focus on sources, not individuals. Other forums are more appropriate for issues about individual editors. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * comment off-wiki canvassing? Really? I would never have guessed from reading all these erudite contributions from experienced editors. Everything looks perfectly aboveboard.2A00:23C7:829E:7E01:5417:CE43:F838:EC47 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * :-P -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that I've semi protected this AfD as it seems to be the target of some sort of meatpuppetry campaign. firefly  ( t · c ) 21:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and Protect I bet that, the exact moment this article is finally deleted, its going to be recreated. Other than that, i believe that there is no particular reason to keep this one. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Before counting or analysis the keep and delete vote please do check on the talk page of Handmeanotherbagofthemchips and it seems like a targeted attack. Losovefa (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a source assessment table I developed based on sources in the article and this discussion:
 * Based on available sources, I !vote delete due to what seems to be insufficient independent and reliable support for WP:BASIC or other notability. Based on the apparent meatpuppetry campaign that includes comments suggesting promotional content and sources support notability, I also recommend salting this article. Beccaynr (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on available sources, I !vote delete due to what seems to be insufficient independent and reliable support for WP:BASIC or other notability. Based on the apparent meatpuppetry campaign that includes comments suggesting promotional content and sources support notability, I also recommend salting this article. Beccaynr (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2022 (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.