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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Dubourdieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Article about a businessman and professor of oenology who does not seem to meet the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. BenTels (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:ACADEMIC, criterion 5 (named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" or equivalent at a major institution of higher education and research). Head of a multi-disciplinary center at the University of Bordeaux where academics and experts from 2 French national institutes work together to advance the state-of-the-art in viticulture and oenology. Tthaas (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I guess you're not familiar with the French academic system: French public universities don't have "named chairs" or "distinguished professors"... And an IFR is just a loose collaboration between local institutes that have some interests in common, to set up some shared platforms or organize a seminar series. It's not a "physical entity", so to say. Being director of one of those is not a huge deal and certainly does not come close to satisfying PROF#5. And the fact that there are people from different universities/national institutes working at the institutes that are part of the IFR is nothing exceptional either, this is the rule in France (my own institute has people from 2 different Bordeaux universities, CNRS, and INSERM...). I'm not saying Dubourdieu is not notable, just saying that the things you list don't imply notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to the Web of Science, Dubourdieu has over 100 publications in peer reviewed journals, of which 11 that have each been cited between 100 and 206 times. Total cites in the thousands, h-index of 38. Clear pass of WP:PROF#1. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to being a very well known winemaker, his work as an enologist is highly influential with numerous academic works that are repeatedly cited in winemaking text books--not the least of which are the Handbooks of Enology (Volumes 1 & 2) which Dubourdieu co-authored. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even if Guillaume2303 hadn't made a valid argument about this person's notability under WP:PROF, Agne27 made an equally valid argument about his notability as a winemaker under WP:GNG. Both editors are correct, the topic is notable, and the article should be kept. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. As well as the evidence of notability compiled above, reliable sources say that he "played a leading role in the improvement of the region's white wines" (International Herald Tribune 2008), "led a revolution in quality [in Bordeaux white wines] over the past 15 years" (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 2009), is "one of the top specialists in the winemaking process and the ageing of white wines" (South Africa Saturday Star 2012), is "wine’s most famous scientist" (Decanter 2004), and that the "lighter, fresher style of so many Bordeaux whites owes much" to his work (New York Times 2000). A very clear and strong pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS I have added these sources to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2012 (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.