Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frédéric Motte


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Frédéric Motte

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

For some background to this nomination, just under a week ago, I created a proposal for the article Frédéric Motte to be removed. As an overview, Motte is listed as the composer for a number of small games (by small, I mostly mean games ranging from obscure Amiga titles to Nintendo DS shovelware). Outside of being in one barely notable demo group in the late 80s/early 90s called Sanity (note: I say barely, because at first glance, it seems like this group itself may not even be notable enough for Wikipedia), this is the extent of his notability.

My rationale can be seen on this old revision of the article, but in effect, the reasoning was four-fold:


 * The subject simply is not notable under WP:NOTE (I did my due diligence and tried to find reputable third-party sources). See: WP:COMPOSER; I assert that the subject meets none of these six criteria, nor do they meet any of the five criteria listed in 'Others'.
 * Almost the entirety of the article was written by the subject himself (note: the username of the article's creator is 'Conkrete' and the subject's recording studio, as listed in the article and the subject's website, is 'Conkrete'; moreover, Conkrete has only edited that article) using no references whatsoever. Moreover, most of the substantial edits after the article's creation were made through IP edits ostensibly by the subject himself – the contributions made by the IPs in question consist exclusively of the article Frédéric Motte and/or articles relating to the subject (such as games he'd composed for); more specifically, I believe that the second and third top contributors (after Conkrete), IP 82.66.31.21 and IP 78.243.79.107, respectively, are the subject himself, or at the very least someone close to the subject. Whether or not these IP edits were undisclosed deliberately is anyone's guess, so I'll default to saying it was an accident in good faith.
 * As the article was an autobiography and the subject wasn't and isn't notable, almost the entire page is completely unreferenced, and the small portion that is uses non-notable sources that consist of two interviews with the subject.
 * It's very likely that the article was created for self-promotion, as the subject places numerous links to their own webpages in the article, including several links directly to their Myspace page in the 'Discography' section. This could have been good faith, but due to the article's flagrant disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines on autobiographies (WP:YOURSELF), I'm inclined to doubt this.

To me, this seemed like a reasonable PROD. As I said, I feel I did my due diligence for WP:NOTE, and the fact that it is a largely unsourced autobiography which was likely created for promotional purposes simply exacerbates this issue.

However, this PROD was reverted on the seventh and final day by an IP editor who had – at the time – two total contributions, with the following explanation: "An 11 year old article with many edits by third parties shouldn't be summarily deleted without normal process, even if the original stub was possibly self-promotion. Subject is arguably notable as a musician in the demoscene as well as video game industry." I feel this reversion is completely unreasonable, and I outlined why on the IP's talk page. In summary, I contest that '11 year old article' and 'many edits by third parties' are red herrings (and that the second one is wrong), that I went through the "normal process" (see: WP:PRODNOM), that the article was likely made for promotional purposes, and that the subject was not noteworthy per WP:NOTE and WP:COMPOSER.

Under WP:CONTESTED, it is stated: "If you still believe that the page should be deleted, or that a discussion is necessary, list it on Articles for deletion or files for discussion." Because it is against Wikipedia's guidelines to reinstate a PROD regardless of the circumstances it was removed under, I've created a nomination to facilitate discussion about its deletion instead. I still emphatically believe that this article has no place on Wikipedia. TheTechnician27 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2019 (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.