Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathieu Séguin

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Séguin

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

Self described young cinematographer, with slim sources, mix of blogs and IMDB. Unable to determine why he is notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. scope_creep (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be fair, there is a bit more real media coverage present here than the nominator has acknowledged — but it's all to his own hometown's local media, it all just namechecks his existence in coverage of other things rather than being substantively about him, and none of it adds up to anything that would pass WP:CREATIVE for the purposes of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, there's a direct conflict of interest here, as the creator's username "Davidjosephanselmo" corresponds directly to the CEO of the same city's main film studio, which means there's a direct professional association between the subject and the creator. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a cinematographer is entitled to have an article just because he can be verified as existing — a cinematographer gets an article when there's a substantive reason for one, such as winning an Oscar or a BAFTA or a Canadian Screen Award, or being influential enough in the field that sources are actually being written to analyze their cinematographic style, and not just for making a locally distributed short "civic pride in our city" video or speaking at the opening of a local high school's new film and video training program. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; this is also a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2017 (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.