Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babette Bensoussan


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Babette Bensoussan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seemingly non-notable and although I found links at News, Books, browser, Highbeam and Scholar, there's nothing to suggest obvious immediate improvement. Pinging the only still active users and. SwisterTwister  talk  06:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Promotional and badly sourced. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Web searches just turn up more promotion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd call this borderline promotional and a probable COI. Deb (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you suppose it to be a CoI? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the promotional wording, and second, the original creator's other contributions. I'm not singling out any individual though. Deb (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. A few books have holdings in the several hundreds, but that's not remarkable for the "help" sector of publishing. Article seems WP:PROMOTION. Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep she doesn't have to be remarkable, just notable. Holdings of 434, 409 (and a Chinese translation) & 367 are quite significant, these 3 from significant publishers. Non notable books in this field have about 100 each, maybe 200. The promotionalism can be fixed rather quickly; I just did it.  DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If she's notable as an author, there's no need for her consulting firm to be mentioned in the second sentence.Deb (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep This is a difficult one as there is a lot of mirrored reporting. She is in business promotion so press clearly seems to be promotional, but, she is notable. She has been recognized twice by her industry's International Board. 1996 Fellow and 2006 Meritorious. Yes, I realize those are primary sources, but the only way to get around whether they are all mirrors is to go to the primary source in this case. The Meritorious entry shows that it is not a rote annual award, but is given only when the board feels service is exemplary, thus to my mind it carries heavier weight than an annual award that must have a recipient. As DGG pointed out, it is a relatively small field and yet, she has numerous citations by scholars of her work stretching over several decades. SusunW (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's sound arguments. If we're going to start deleting notable people to punish them for self-promotion, could we please start with those embarassments-to-the-human-species Kardashians and work out way down? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above, and meets WP:ANYBIO having "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" of Competitive intelligence. Here are some of the numerous ocurrences of her being acknowledged/used as a source: -Competitive Intelligence in The Information Management Journal by Sue Myburgh - "Craig Fleischer and Babette Bensoussan’s FAROUT criteria are useful in interpreting these models:",  -Favorite CI Analytic Tools that Deliver Value presented to the 2012 SLA Annual Conference - her books appear in other references section,  -Using Business Intelligence to Discover New Market Opportunities in the Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management by Janice Frates & Seena Sharp - "The authors appreciate the thoughtful peer review and insightful comments by Babette Bensoussan and Dr. Judith Connell on a draft of this paper." Her awards also help her notability (I have moved them in an awards section in the article). Coolabahapple (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per, , et al. There is enough to show she passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2015 (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.