Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Ben-Horin


 * 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. There is no consensus to delete and the nominator now appears to be against deleting the page. The question of whether to keep a standalone article or merge to another is an editorial one that can be addressed outside of AfD, without a deadline. Cheers, – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  22:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Ben-Horin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sorry for the procedural oddity here. This article was blanked and redirected by back in June 2016, citing WP:BLP1E. Earlier this month a new page with quite a lot of original research was created by, an editor with an undisclosed and likely paid conflict of interest. has proposed restoring the page while trimming the OR. This is why I'm opening an AfD on a page that's currently just a redirect.

I believe Mr. Ben-Horin isn't quite notable enough to merit a standalone article (see WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E). There have been some reliable independent secondary sources that mentioned him, but I haven't found significant coverage. As far as I can tell the secondary sources say he was the founder of Compumentor (now TechSoup) and he has been quoted a few times about the organization in a handful of news articles and books. That doesn't seem like sufficient biographical content to build an encyclopedia article. The guy has also published a number of articles as well, but there are no independent secondary sources discussing them. I agree with Lemongirl942's decision to WP:BLAR the page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete subject lacks the indepth coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I added an improved and watered down version for the purposes of the AFD as you can't leave it as a redirect during an AFD really. I'll try to further alter and reword it and see if I can find anything of substance but at present I agree with Dr Fleischer on the bio coverage. There does seem to be a lot of hits in google books on both his journalism and in relation to his main work though so I don't think this is a BLP1E, it's more a case of, "what is the best way to represent this material and try to avoid puffery and padding". Some of the info is certainly pertinent to this person's organization/background even if not a biography.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That might be a good way of putting it, so perhaps we're in agreement after all. Some of Ben-Horin's published commentary about TechSoup might be appropriate for TechSoup. I just don't think it would be appropriate for Daniel Ben-Horin. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article was tagged AfD on the basis of probably justified COI but it seems to me that thanks to the efforts of Dr. Blofeld, in its present form and with the sources given, there is sufficient evidence of notability. Some might not consider the Huffington Post a reliable source, but this points to considerable achievement, perhaps deserving further investigation.--Ipigott (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to me misrepresented here. I didn't start this AfD the basis of a COI. I started it on the basis of a lack of secondary sources containing encyclopedic content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Aside from solid sources like SF Chronicle, New York Times, Washington Post, Yale School, Management Review, Fortune, there's too many hits in secondary reliable sources to ignore. He was a prolific journalist (2200 odd hits in newspapers.com), I've found several books for instance which discuss him and a 1975 article he wrote on rape like  so he was notable for other things than his group so would make a merge less clearcut, though I can still see an argument to do it. I agree that bio coverage is sparse but that's common with CEOs who tend to be discussed with their companies, their bios tend to be pretty boring as in this case. I think in normal circumstances if we're totally honest nobody would batter an eyelid at having this article and article subjects or people linked with them don't own their content, we call the shots here and ensure that articles are neutral and comply with guidelines. ♦  Dr. Blofeld  10:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be at least mentioned in many books! Meets WP:GNG.  No compliance with WP:Before.  And the article as modified by Dr. Blofeld clearly proves that.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 11:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge (as nom). In response to the other comments, the issue isn't about how many reliable sources have mentioned him; the issue is about significant coverage. The sources that mention him (as dutifully listed by Dr. Blofeld) don't have content that would make it into this article. Most of these are simply quotes of Ben-Horin commenting about TechSoup, not biographical material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Steady on now, we've agreed on most things so far and you even agreed that the other article was borderline notable. This has way more (potential) sources. It just about meets minimum requirements IMO too given the sheer number of hits and even if it wasn't suitable for its own article the content would be largely relevant in the main article as a background to the company/formation etc and you know it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to make clear that I support merging relevant, reliably sourced content into TechSoup. Regardless of whether Ben-Horin is notable, I do not think he merits a standalone article, for the reasons given. I express all of my opinions here in good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2017 (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.