Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Masquelier


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  09:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Jacques Masquelier

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is essentially advertising. The only links are to Masquelier's own site. The article says almost nothing about him: where did he study? where did he work? what did he publish? Web of Science lists 89 publications for Masquelier J, but a high proportion of these were written by other people with similar names, and 29 were published long after he died. Web of Science gives h = 15 (not too impressive if taken at face value) but h = 7 is a more plausible value if one tries to correct for homonyms. Although this was supposedly a distinguished French scientist, no one has thought of posting an article in French: the only translations are German and Egyptian Arabic. The article was created by an editor who is now blocked. Athel cb (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to have done this correctly. (This is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion.) It should refer to the article Jacques Masquelier. Athel cb (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to be OK now. At least, it looks the way I expected it to look. Athel cb (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Liamyangll  ( talk to me! ) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science,  and France.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: You know that an article being a stub and an article not having a corresponding language version are not suitable for deletion, so I don't know why you included these in your rationale, as they make your total argument weaker. I think there is something to this article, but have not yet determined a !vote. He seems to have been the creator of condensed tannin (Oligomeric proanthocyanidin), based on these obits . His methods do appear to be researched by others, such as in this article in Nutrition Journal. Haven't yet made a determination on a !vote. Curbon7 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep The peer-review study cited and explained by Athel cb is of concern, but that's how research gets done, drug companies sponsor studies. The honorary awards are probably the best proof we have for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article used to be significantly longer, but another editor removed a bunch of text as unreferenced. See this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques_Masquelier&oldid=1044714873 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not just unreferenced. The edit summary said "There is absolutely no source for these grandiose claims. The links are to a company selling Masquelier-brand snake oil." I agree. Athel cb (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article in a peer-reviewed journal shows that his work had a lasting impact. His death notice mentions two honorary degrees, the position of rector at a wine-lovers' association, and the position of "dean of the faculty" at Bordeaux (presumably the University of Bordeaux). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, but notice that the authors of that article say "This work was financially supported by International Nutrition Company (INC) BV, Loosdrecht, The Netherlands.", and the web site of that company says "INC​ is the exclusive worldwide supplier of MASQUELIER's Original OPCs / ANTHOGENOL ® and MASQUELIER's ® FRENCH PINE BARK COMPLEX. Dr. Jack Masquelier is not only the discoverer of OPCs, he is also the inventor of both products' original production methods. INC's MASQUELIER's ® products are being made per the scrupulous manufacturing standards "set" by Dr. Masquelier." Back to advertising, it seems to me. However, I accept that honorary degrees from Laval and Bordeaux are legitimate evidence of notability. Athel cb (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Week keep . I'm just not seeing independent coverage needed for GNG or WP:NPROF in the above conversation. In the existing article, the only thing that maybe gives a little weight to notability is being a dean, but that is not good enough for NPROF under Criteria 6. The only thing I do notice is from a Google Scholar search where Masquelier is frequently mentioned for identifying the compounds (though that's about it). That's flirting with WP:BLP1E a bit, but I think there's just enough to have a stub. If it is kept, I do think it will benefit from combing out the promotional or closely tied sources, non-MEDRS health sources, etc. I could switch to delete if the google scholar search isn't what it appears to be though (e.g., they turn out to mostly be health woo articles). KoA (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I went looking through the sources I mentioned earlier in scholarly searches with a bit more depth, and while borderline in many cases, I would say they didn't really quite hit the bar for WP:SIGCOV. It wouldn't take much for a few sources to get this person past the notability bar though given what I have seen, but we'd still have to be careful that they aren't of the fringe or WP:PUFFERY variety if such sources show up in the future. KoA (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 01:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. "Masquelier.com your guide to MASQUELIER's Original OPCs health benefits" as the main source?? Really? This looks like a blatant fail of WP:MEDRS and a WP:COATRACK to cite this non-MEDRS source. None of the sources listed appear to be all of in-depth, reliable, and independent of the subject. There is no real evidence of WP:PROF nor WP:GNG notability, and I agree with the "snake oil" comment above. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * This is very weak. I agree with drletion. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Neither the general nor the specialized notability criteria are met; there is no indication that we need to write about the person rather than the compounds. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: The argument by David is sound that while there may be something here, it horribly fails any medical reliability criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2023 (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.