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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Mangematin[edit]

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

I don't think this person doesn't meets WP:ACADEMIC, and all references come from his own webpage. Dengero (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. GScholar shows the subject as having published a few heavily cited articles and as having an h-index of 24, which in many subject areas would show fulfilment of WP:ACADEMIC#1. I am willing to be told by those with more expertise than I have that this isn't one of them, but otherwise this article should be kept after drastic pruning - primary sources are OK for verifying basic facts, but even WP:ACADEMIC doesn't justify basing lengthy descriptions entirely on them. PWilkinson (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unenthusiastic as I am about the fields of management and marketing I have to admit that an h-index of 24 is enough to get over the line for WP:Prof#C1. This is a well-cited field so 20 would suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:11, 22 November 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.