Talk:Daniel Ben-Horin

February 2015
Daniel Ben-Horin's original page has 36+ citations to reputable international publications, newspapers (including The New York Times) and several books establishing this individual's accomplishments and reputation as an innovator in the field. The Huffington Post, for example, is such a publication, not just a "blog," as is the Stanford Social Innovation Review. The stature of the international nonprofit this individual has founded is also demonstrated. Whether or not I personally am acquainted with this individual is irrelevant as the facts and citations speak for themselves. The description in the article does not use 'pr' language or 'puffery,' as you state, but simply states the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennhirsch (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Glenn. I made 15 edits to this article, and for only one of them did I refer to blogs, and for only one of them did I refer to "'pr' language or 'puffery.'" Yet you mass reverted all 15 of my edits, including the tags I added, which isn't productive. If you disagree with specific edits, please raise the issue(s) here are we can address them one by one. (And don't remove tags until they're resolved.) To get things started I'll address two issues that I understand you to be raising:
 * Stehle quote: I called this quote "puffery" and removed it on neutrality grounds because it seemed undue. Generally, the fact that a subject won an award may be noteworthy, but the praise that the subject received during the awards ceremony is generally not noteworthy. People giving awards say all sorts of complimentary things; we can't include a quote for every award given to every awardee.
 * Huffington Post and Stanford Social Innovation Review: The fact that the subject blogs on these fora may be noteworthy. I'm restoring those bits. However, links to Ben-Horin's specific blog posts are inappropriate. Generally, Wikipedia's yardstick for noteworthiness/notability is coverage by independent reliable sources.
 * I hope this helps. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Daniel Ben-Horin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100111020132/http://ashoka.org:80/newfellows to http://ashoka.org/newfellows
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928062158/http://www.nptimes.com/07Aug/070801Special%20Report.pdf to http://www.nptimes.com/07Aug/070801Special%20Report.pdf

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Daniel Ben-Horin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ashoka.org/newfellows
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nptimes.com/07Aug/070801Special%20Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirected to TechSoup Global
I have redirected the article to TechSoup Global as this is essentially WP:BLP1E. I would be glad if someone could show me otherwise. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the blar. I've gone through a recent re-write of this article that was submitted by a COI editor, with lots of refs, and this SFGate article was the only independent reliable secondary source I could find with anything significant about Ben-Horin. Unfortunately, there really isn't much in there of biographical relevance. It's just him talking a bit about TechSoup. I do not think he should have a standalone article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that there isn't much biographical relevance and it's a weak case as a biography. Where I disagree though is that this is a BLP1E. He seems to be mentioned or referenced in a fair number of books for both journalism/his writing, and his main work, he is cited here for instance  as being instrumental and working with the head of google. Sources like have more than just a passing mention, and people who are totally not notable don't tend to get that in books. I suggest you take it to AFD (in the cut/altered version) and let the community decide and give a fair decision on what to do with it. I certainly don't think it is a clear cut keep, but I don't think we can ignore the amount of coverage he has in books either. It may be that the community decides to document a bit of info in main article so we should respect whatever is decided.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked through those sources and I don't see anything that would make it into an encyclopedia article, at least not one about him, beyond the fact that he founded CompuMentor. I'll start an AfD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to make of the AfD. It was closed as keep with the express caveat that it did not foreclose a merge. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Merge" at XfD is a form of "keep", when merging the page history should be preserved for attribution (see WP:merge and delete for more info) so the outcome of the AfD was, in a nutshell, that no pages get deleted. Merging is an editorial decision that can be made in article talk space, outside of the deletion process, so I suggest continuing that discussion here. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  23:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)