Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yves Vatelot


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yves Vatelot

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not entirely sure that the subject passes WP:GNG, given that the references are mostly passing references focused on the winery that he bought or primary sources, such as patent applications. I also have WP:PROMO concerns given that both this article and The French Wiki article were both created this month by the same SPA, who has conveniently left out the only real coverage that I could find of Yves Vatelot-which was that he was sued for false advertising by the Union of Grand Cru Classés. GPL93 (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and agree with Nom: There is too many issues that could only be solved by blowing the article up and starting all over again, if notability could be established. A big red flag, other than the essay writing, is the advertising that violates policy. "[T]he vineyard regained its place among the best Bordeaux wine producers" that is not sourced and is clear wikipuffery. The "Early career section" is not sourced and without that it screams original research. Part of the In the consumer electronics industry section is unsourced so more WP:OR. The article red links a section heading, a disambiguation page, and again the same red link as the heading that is also unsourced. Although WP:TNT "may not usually be a good argument for AFD" I observed all of the above without getting to the sources so would offer that an only solution is to "get rid of the promotional junk". Otr500 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After note: This is a BLP and a mandated "higher standard", in my opinion, requires more than can just be corrected with editing what is presently in the article. Otr500 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete.None of the references serve to establish that this man is notable. And as noted it is clearly a paid-for lump of promotional guff; editing out the bubbles would leave almost nothing. OFF WITH IT'S HEAD!TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I checked out the French sources and I'm sitting on the fence here. A good part of them don't actually mention the subject but the sale of Chateau Lascombe to an insurance company and the claim "In 2001, with the American international investment firm Colony Capital, Yves Vatelot bought Château Lascombes" seems to be an embellishment of the truth, he had an undisclosed participation in the operation. According to this source he was appointed as a consultant for the domaine but not General manager nor technical manager nor oenologist. So the claim "With the help of Michel Rolland and Dr. Alain Raynaud..." that gives the impression that he was the driving force behind the success is more than misleading. This source  says that the chateau was put back on the rails by Dominique Befve and no mention of Vatelot. There are no mentions of Valelot's particpation in the Buffalo Grill operation in any reliable sources but he was named on the Conseil de surveillance  as a representative of the shareholders. I am on the fence because of these sources    . He saw his fine in the Reignac advertising affaire reduced to a suspended one of €8,000 from €15,000. The advert was seen as being very cheeky and thumbed its nose at the Grand Cru Classés and went a bit too far in legal terms. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:23, 23 August 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.