Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/René-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet


 * 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   keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

René-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Tragic as it may be, the incident he is involved in is a "WP:ONEEVENT". Therefore it does not meet the notability guidelines. The suggested cause of action should be a merger into Bernard Madoff Wapondaponda (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep How many people lose $1.4 billion dollars in a day through a massive ponzi scam? And how many other fund managers have felt ashamed enough to take their own lives? When Bernard Madoff is finally placed on trial for his crimes, I suspect will hear a lot more about poor René-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet...and Madoff's more prominent victims. This will increase his prominence. Finally, René-Thierry was a fund manager for a French billionaire and a major fund manager in New York, so he isn't really lacking notability in investment circles. Leoboudv (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * comment. The $1.4 billion was not his money, but belonged to clients of his firm. The problem is, outside of Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme, there is little notability. There is unlikely to be any new information about Mr. de la Villehuchet in the future. This article is likely to be permanently static, with the only contributions being related to Bernie Madoff. The appropriate action is therefore a merger into Bernie Madoff per WP:ONEVENT.Wapondaponda (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Actually René-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet is one of the notable deaths reflected on the Wikipedia principal page under the section "Recent Deaths". Refer to Wikipedia deaths page dated December 23, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_in_2008 So the request to delete the page seems contradictory with Wikipedia's own judgement that this individual's dramatic death was relevant, as he and his company Access International lost 1.4 billion and more on the financial schemes of Bernard Madoff. Furthermore he had a very prominent life in financial circles particularly with influential French families, and channelled huge funds to Madoff, he coming also from Magon family that goes back very far in nobility and influence in Europe. He was also founder and CEO of Credit Luyonnais Securities USA, which adds more notability werldwayd (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete; comment His listing on the deaths page means nothing. Less than half of the people listed are truly notable.  About a tenth of the deaths reported are removed as redlinks a month after death. Star Garnet (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Although it is not the place here to discuss this aspect of Wikipedia procedure thoroughly, if what colleague "Star Garnet" claims is actually true when he says "Less than half of the people listed are truly notable" (see above comment), meaning a clear majority of what we see in the daily death listings are not deaths of truly notable individuals, I submit there is something fundamentally at fault in the procedure through which death lists are presently being prepared in Wikipedia. If such is the case, the lists should be better "filtered" and examined, prior to final listing in the daily lists section. In addition if a majority of the deaths were so unnotable, as claimed, how come we have almost 90% of them with independent articles in Wikipedia about the deceased and just 10% redlinked? As a consequent comment, if there is actually a clear Wikipedia deletion clause after just one month, I suggest that more time is given to contributors, to work on the redlinks. I suggest 3 to 6 months to be a plausible period, prior to final deletion of "redlinked" death citations, not just an automatic one month grace period.werldwayd (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is true that a small paragraph is included in the main Madoff article. However the relevancy of the man goes far beyond this one incident. I fail to see why he should be "burried" in a massive Madoff article that promises to get even bigger, rather than keep his own page where further info can be conveniently added now or later, details that may have no place in a Madoff global article. For background on Mr. de la Villehuchet, see also http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jFShThgSBha0jHZDYmaPD_dXJdEQD959CH5O0 or http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5393237.ece ... Obviously his death had huge repurcussions in Europe more than in the USA and thus gave a whole new perspective on the extent of Madoff's damage on the intrenational scene. werldwayd (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Major financial news event that is obviously part of the general record of economic history. things of this magnitude do not even remotely fall under oneevent. But in any case he was notable as a financial executive. People don't get to the position where things like this can happen to them without being notable first, and its our cultural bias against business related subjects to blame that there wasnt  always an article.DGG (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * comment. I tend to disagree that there is cultural bias against business. I think there is a pro bias on wikipedia articles to anybody who is wealthy. Maybe wealth equals notability. After one or two years, I don't see any edits being made to Mr. Villehuchet's article, except for what happens to Mr.Madoff. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep-- He had to be notable beyond one event to manage and waste $1.4 billions. --Jmundo (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, it was the company he co-founded, Access International Advisors, that wasted $1.4 billion, not necessarily de la Villehuchet personally. Villehuchet was wealthy, but he was not a billionaire. The $1.4 billion that was lost was mostly  from clients of AIA. He lost a couple of million of his own money. However, he was one of several to loose money, bloomberg list. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

IP, 31 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.89.67.131 (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. 1. The 'one-event' has not finished yet, we could meet new facts. An investment banker losing 1.4 billion — and no follow-up or related subjects (e.g. other institutions involved)? What about this Access company? 2. His Madoff-relation is one, the death (with circumstances) is two. And, by the way: Madoff is also a one-event. VfD Madoff then? -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete-- All notability is related to B. Madoff and the event of his losses and death are already depicted there.--Gkklein (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with DGG's rationale. Cbl62 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The death of René-Thierry Magon de La Villehuchet is certainly an historical event.
 * Merge to Bernard Madoff. I'm not convinced he passes the notability test at this time; although strictly speaking BLP does not apply here, this seems like the sort of article WP:BLP1E is meant to cover (and WP:NOTMEMORIAL as well). Unless anyone can make a notability claim for him unrelated to the Madoff scandal, I'd say this should be merged there as a tragic but small part of a larger story. Terraxos (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, The distinctive art of Madoff was in getting other notable people to wittingly or unwittingly feed into his scheme.DGG (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, don't merge Scanlan (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. While not a household name, he was an important financial figure even before his death. It is a shame that his death made him even more prominent, but that does not detract from his significance. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2009 (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.