Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathieu Raynault

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Raynault

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable. Promotional, with apparent COI / possible UPE issues. Effectively unreferenced, as it only lists a few sources at the end, without actually citing any. And of the three RS secondary sources, none fully meets the GNG criteria, the rest are IMDb and LinkedIn, and BEFORE finds nothing beyond the usual close primary sites, social media accounts, directory listings, etc. The career details look at first impressive, but essentially are just a work history, with nothing to indicate they would add up to FILMMAKER / ARTIST notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Canada. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He does have an IMDb page, but all nominations were as part of a group with no individual contributions that I could find. Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing is even close to showing notability. Having an IMDb page is of no worth, since IMDb is not a reliable source, we should not be consulting it at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One hit in La Presse [1] and bunch of mentions in lists of Emmy nominations [2], but this article badly needs a clean up. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not cite any sources. I am not finding any secondary reliable sourcesWomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's definitely some self-promotional puffery going on here. There are numerous award claims (Oscar, BAFTA, CSA) that don't actually wash: he may have worked on the associated films, but he has never been personally named as the actual nominee for any of the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects, the BAFTA Award for Best Special Visual Effects or the Canadian Screen Award for Best Visual Effects. A person does not inherit a notability freebie just because he happens to have worked on award-nominated films if he was not himself singled out as the nominee, so none of those assertions count as notability claims at all.
To be fair, he does genuinely have the claimed Emmy Award nod, but there are too many other problems with the article for me to be able to say "keep because Emmy nomination" and walk away. Between the three legitimate newspaper articles listed in the external links section and the additional one that Oaktree b found above, there might be enough coverage to restart a more neutral and accurate version from scratch, but both the bad formatting and the extreme inaccuracy issues here (as well as the clear conflict of interest, given that he started the article himself and it's since been extensively edited by another user named "Valerieraynault") mandate the WP:TNT treatment: this is so deeply infested with problems that even if he does have a valid notability claim, it would be better to restart a properly written article from scratch than to retain this. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is promotional, whether COI/UPE or not. As the nominator and others have said, it inflates his accomplishments. Bearcat brings up important considerations, that there may be some misrepresentation in the article. If GNG can be shown to be met, a WP:TNT may still be the best solution, and in the future an more encyclopedic article can be created with proper sourcing and tone. Netherzone (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2022 (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.