Talk:Richard Ebeling

Conflict of interest
I have added a Conflict of interest tag on the article. Richard Ebeling has indicated that he is the subject of the article and has done most of the edits on the article. GB fan please review my editing 15:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * GB, per your notice I revised and edited the article. I made several changes. Hope it is OK now. --MeUser42 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Deletion
@David Gerard Hey, I found this listed on a list of  articles proposed for deletion. It may be true that a lot of the references could (possibly) be "primary sources" because of they could have been written by the subject (i.e., even though they are on various institutional pages, often those institutions ask people to write their own bios). However, the fact is that he is affiliated with AIER and Clemson University (among others) and occupies an endowed chair at The Citadel, which satisfies WP:PROF#Criteria #5. He's also published several articles and books with academic publishers (i.e., peer-reviewed), such as Routledge, Univ. of Chicago Press, and academic journals, which show his contribution to the field. So the issue about primary sources threatening notability is moot: the guys is a public intellectual and academic. (Moreover, the primary source issue is difficult for academics because they aren't often in the public eye, despite their works and contributions satisfying WP:Note).

I agree it's a bit heavy on personal biography, but as the article is simply a stub and needs to be improved (e.g., refocus towards public significance by adding his works, some of his controversial public statements, and compressing the bio more), as well as finding unquestionable secondary sources. But he passes WP:PrOF, so it shouldn't be taken to AfD. I suggest removing the proposal to delete and leave the primary source tags (and maybe move your evidence to this talk page for future reference). -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I was actually surprised there were a flat zero third-party sources about Ebeling, either in the article or that I could find anywhere else. It sounds like you can't find any either. Is there really absolutely no coverage of Ebeling himself? - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The Citadel link doesn't verify the chair - is there a cite for that? - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Found one, added. The chair passes prima facie notability, but we still need sources for a BLP. Are there really zero? - David Gerard (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok yeah. There's not much, in truth, but again that's not uncommon for academics. After a bit more digging, probably the most reputable secondary sources I could find are a review of one of his more popular books, and an interview with an online magazine:
 * https://doi.org/10.1515/jeeh-1996-0411
 * https://www.discoursemagazine.com/culture-and-society/2020/08/14/restoring-liberalism/


 * There are other interviews with him on blogs and YouTube (which also has a lot of recorded colloquiums and such). I know it depends on how the interview is presented, though, to be primary or secondary. His works are also cited by other academics all the time, as shown in GoogleScholar.


 * I ran out of time, but I can add those in later. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Reviews would probably be good! - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * ok, i added those refs and removed from speedy deletion. I refrained from removing all the primary-source tags, but I don't see why secondary sources are needed for where he went to school or where he taught (but i still left those since I agree more secondary sources are needed generally). As such, I left up the general notice that the article needs to be improved. Hope this this is satisfactory for now. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can live with it :-) Good work. The chair does pass WP:NPROF. I'm still actually surprised at no secondary sources ... - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * great, glad we could fix that. Cheers -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)