Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David 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. Davewild (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

David Bensoussan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable educator/author. Article was deleted via prod in 2012, restored last month at the request of an IP editor, and not improved since. -- Finngall  talk  22:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * interestingly he's cited in several WP articles on Maghrebi Jews. Has been used as a source on several pages as a source for years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussionsE.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. 2602:306:8040:EB30:4D1C:96B:6C56:A19F (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * wonderful. flag an AFD as Judaism-related and instantly some bozo creates an IP account to vote delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the person behind the 1-edit account that created this article also a "bozo"? Agricola44 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Author and compiler of the historical record of the Sephardi communities of the Maghreb, especially Morocco, and leader of the Sephardic community of Quebec, this article is clearly worthy of being kept and expanded. It needs expansion and better sourcing, but I am not persuaded that it was an appropriate candidate for AFD, perhaps tagging would have made more sense.   Unless, of  course, the Nom is using AFD as a means of incentivizing editors to source selected articles, on pain of seeing them deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment IPs have no account and cannot be created. It's just the address from where you edit. Taking an article to AFD because it was previously deleted via a PROD is not unreasonable and, as far as I know, being "worthy" is not included in any notability guideline... What we need is sources, not opinions. Aren't there any book reviews or such? --Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Randy, I want to hire you to proofread my next paper. Yes, I am aware of what a IP is.  And, yes, I do tend to key in my comments too fast.  I undoubtedly need need a full-time copy editor.  My bad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Caught... Copy-editing is one of the things I do in real life :-) --Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * re: Bensoussan, my point is, given that the article makes plausible claims, looks sourceable in a quick search, and has only been back on Wikipedia for a month, it might have been more appropriate to tag it, or bring it to that attention of a WP topic group than put it at AFD. AFD too often feels like a demand that (somewhat randomly chosen) articles be sourced, rather than an affirmation that the Nom has searched and found no plausible sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did a search on JSTOR, which for this kind of material would be most appropriate, but found nothing. Same with GScholar. Tagging is not often useful, especially not if there are no active editors (just have a look at the relevant maintenance categories and see how many tens of thousands of articles are tagged in this way...) --Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Randykitty fact is, I find articles on writers and others who lack fame one of the most functional aspects of WP. I mean, I know who Francis Fukuyama is. But often I stumble on a footnote to a guy I've never heard of. A guy like Bensoussan, whose books do get cited a little,  I love when WP has a page so that I can get a quick look at a profile, it helps me to figure out where to look if I need ot know more.  This one's strange, not notable in the field he teaches, a passionate love for the king and country that his parents fled from as persecuted refugees, but substantial coverage of his books and ethno-political activity.  When I'm trying to figure some non world-renowned institution, author, or phenomenon out, I often add a footnote or a fact to the page.  (wish we could encourage more people would do that.)   Sometimes a guy catches my fancy as this one did, and  I spend a little time sourcing a page.  But my underlying motivation here is that I find pages of this type useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Plausible claims mean nothing: they must be backed up by WP:RS. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being the leader of a local ethnic community is not notable per se, unless there's significant coverage, which there does not seem to be. (There's just the usual web ephemera LinkedIn, WhitePages, FaceBook et al.) Given his education/employment, WP:PROF is applicable, but his research record as an EE is extremely average: h-index of 6 (GS) or 10 (WoS) over a ~35 year career. WorldCat shows that he has a number of books, but they seem to be held by around 50-60 institutions, on average. Article is low-view and basically an orphan. I think nom has it right – there's been ample time, years in fact, to improve the material here, but it hasn't happened. Agricola44 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep The version of the article we have now needs work, but the credible claims of notability justify retention based on the material presented here. The French-language version provides additional claims of notability and provides a template for further expansion of this article. Alansohn (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - almost all the references to "David Bensoussan" are about other people, unless he's also a high school tennis player or a stockbroker from California. The French version absolutely does not have sufficient sources either, and "claims of notability" are not sufficient. The French version says he won the Queen's diamond jubilee medal; well, hundreds of thousands of people were awarded this medal (70,000+ in Canada alone). —Мандичка YO 😜 20:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Now sourcing article. It's not unusual to have to use keywords, in this case, not only is there a tennis player, there is a prominent leader in the Cleveland Jewish community with the same name.  I haven't searched on  Bensoussan day job as a professor in a Polytech.  What I have been searching and finding is his civic and ethnic leadership role in Montreal (continuing to source the page, but do take a look before your iVote).  Am looking now at his published work.  His books are all self-published - something that I had not considered when I first came upon this page. They are, however, labors of love, collections of the documents, lore, and memoirs of a vanished community.  A series of pogroms and threats between 1948 and 1967 drove all but a tiny remnant of Jews from Morocco, historians mine Bensoussan's books for evidence of what was.  Also, he gets interviewed.   Check out the 1999 interview in The Gazette that I linked to (footnote #1)  This is for a 3 volume, self-published book on the Bible written by a guy with a PhD in electrical engineering.  i know people who have written real books who would kill for that many column inches in a big city daily.  My point it that, however you feel about 3 volume, self-published books or leadership roles in ethnic communities, article topics pass or fail WP:GNG according to the coverage.  Take a look at the article as I continue to source it, instead of dismissing Bensoussan because the (more recently published) news google hits on the tennis player come to the top of the search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all of his books are self-published (although the Bible one is) see, for example, his L'Espagne des trois religions : grandeur et décadence de la convivencia E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * wins literary prize, pardon my French, but until I got around to the French sources, I was waaay underestimating this guy's notability. see here: . E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Haim Zafrani was notable but the "Haim Zafrani Award" does not appear to be. Agricola44 (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Le Prix Haïm Zafrani
 * The prize was only established about a half-dozen years ago and the link you give is from the institute that awards the prize. Sorry, but this is unconvincing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Agricola, I am not arguing for a magic bullet book prize. I added the website of the organization giving the prize so that you and others could easily assess its weight. What I am arguing is that when you add up everything form testifying in Parliament about the history of the Jews of Morocco (here:), to a lengthy author profile in the Montreal Gazette, to the fact that he regularly pens op-eds for La Presse and the fact that museums hold seminars to discuss his published collection of ketubot from Mogador here: it adds up to passing WP:GNG.
 * I understand the argument you're making, i.e. that several aspects which, taken individually do not signify notability, nevertheless collectively prove notability. This "notability is additive" argument comes up from time to time, but it is not policy and historically has not been accepted in AfDs. The Haim Zafrani prize's weight is easily assessed as being close to nil because it is new and not widely recognized. Testifying to any government body is also not notable since umpteen thousands of people do this every year on probably every subject imaginable. I cannot comment on the MG source, since I do not have access. However, having your work discussed at meetings (conference, museum, symposium, etc) is likewise not notable. Actually, it is standard fare for most academics. I think if it were true that Bensoussan is notable, then you would see much stronger indicators, i.e. any of the following: large book holdings (no), high citations to his work (no), substantive stories covering him or his work. I'll take your word that the MG piece is one instance of coverage, but we generally require several of these for GNG. Sorry, but I'm still unconvinced. Agricola44 (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC).


 * long articles about Bensoussan can be found in the Montreal Gazette 1999, Canadian Jewish News 2012 , Le Mag 2011 ].  Other articles now on the page have substantive coverage, including .E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources are mostly in French but he's notable. The CJN piece already cited is in depth; I can't access the Montreal Gazette; others are less focussed on Bensoussan but together show his status. Here are some reviews of his books. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, please note that the review in Le Monde is about a book written by Georges Bensoussan, a Frenchman. The two links to assr.revues.org are apparently one and the same review. I have no idea how significant Archives de sciences sociales des religions and Le Mag are. --Randykitty (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Users, , . The article has more than sufficient WP:V & WP:RS making the subject WP:N, in addition the article has been upgraded and improved removing all doubts raised by the nominator. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are a lot of reviews of his work; also it does not matter if the award was established only six years ago, it is a meaningful award. Elie Wiesel and his institute are very famous - I'm not even Jewish and I know about him. Elgatodegato (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per IZAK. Ism schism (talk) 22:37, 10 May 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.