Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Scott Wills


 * 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. ✗ plicit  03:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Scott Wills

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

Sources are extremely tangential or not about the artist himself. Found nothing better in a WP:BEFORE. Deprodded in violation of WP:NPA. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Regarding the last part of the nomination, for context see the ongoing ANI threads and commentary:
 * TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs
 * 2 other proposals
 * Quick proposal
 * Didn't he say he was going to put a hold on it for now?.
 * – These are valid community concerns, and the deprod edit summary simply reflected some of those concerns. North America1000 16:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So the fact that I explicitly stated that I did do a WP:BEFORE is not enough? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In my view, unfortunately, no, it's not enough at this time. For example, at ANI, users have posted comments such as, "I have skepticism that it is humanly possible for TenPoundHammer to be doing sufficient WP:BEFORE checks on the AFDs and WP:PRODNOM checks on the PRODs at their current rate of editing", "TenPoundHammer needs to do a proper WP:BEFORE and provide better deletion rationales instead of nominating articles because they are "unlikely to be sourced" or "tagged for notability", "They seems either to have a lack of understanding about what notability is, a refusal to believe that WP:BEFORE applies to them, or a belief that their opinions override Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.", "it appears TenPoundHammer believes it is up to AfD participants to improve the article. This is the wrong way round, the nominator should carry out a full WP:BEFORE search and attempt to improve the article before considering nominating it for deletion", "...seems to have some WP:BEFORE problems, particularly in the claim that there's nothing in Google Books..." and "we need an iron clad commitment for the user to do a proper WP:BEFORE check on any article they nominate", among others that are also there. An issue is that you seem to be missing sources in your WP:BEFORE checks that others later easily find. Others at ANI have stated that they doubt it's even possible to perform adequate WP:BEFORE checks at the rate you have been performing deletion activities. North America1000 17:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * None of which has anything to do with this exact nomination. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You stated in your nomination that the article was "Deprodded in violation of WP:NPA", but this is not the truth nor the intention. Your argument directly above is a straw man. Your patterns of behavior regarding deletion matters have recently concerned many users and are being discussed at ANI. This is a deletion discussion that you created, and as such constitutes a part of the overall actions you have been performing that many are concerned about. My edit summary when deprodding simply reflected that. Hopefully you can now figure out my edit summary from the information I have furnished to you here. Good day. North America1000 21:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am not a fan of the nominator's recent patterns with PROD's and AfD's (see the collapsed discussion section above), but in this case I must admit that he is correct. Andrew Scott Wills is a behind-the-scenes songwriter who has a few songs that became hits, but the notability goes to the recording artists while Mr. Wills is only ever listed in the credits. Except for this minor introductory profile:, I can find no significant coverage of his career in its own right, and he is only visible in directory entries and the aforementioned songwriting/publishing credits. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - The previous PROD for this article and its removal are parts of an investigation into possibly inappropriate practices (as seen in the collapsed discussion above), so perhaps the PROD's existence should not be a determining factor in whether this article falls into "no consensus" purgatory. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 15:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No vote. Because of the questions about the nominator, I've done my own BEFORE here, more than once. And still, haven't decided to vote either way. Maybe this is the perfect article for "no consensus". Jacona (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourcing is insufficient for the topic to meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 03:24, 29 June 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.