Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Ebendorf


 * 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. John254 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Ebendorf

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:BIO criteria not met. WP:BIO states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." Note Number 3 is critical in WP:BIO "Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references..." this means no matter how many reproduction of original artwork that is put in books does not count toward significance. Unless author can provide sources to the significance of this person (other than reproduction of original artwork.) I move to delete this article. Ctempleton3 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete if we don't have enough unbias secondary sources we are doing the guy a diservice, either being too positive or negative. he's nn.NewAtThis (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User is a banned sock. Jfire (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That page already exists at Robert ebendorf, move Robert ebendorf to Robert Ebendorf. – i123Pie biocontribs 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, easily confirmed as a major American jewelry/metalwork artist. Needs more sources, but a retrospective exhibition at the Renwick Gallery is not the same as an exhibition at any old gallery, it is recognition of historical importance among the pantheon of American artists and artisans. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If the Smithsonian Institution has cause to call him a notable artist, display his art, and interview him at length, plus if his artwork is widely published, then he's clearly notable. Does this article need rewriting? You bet.  But reliable secondary sources are widely available   from 1970s New York Times articles to an article in Antiques and Arts Weekly in March 2008. - Dravecky ( talk! ) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but only on the basis that I have actually heard of the guy! Article needs rewrite and better sources. --Alchemy12 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I admit that this is not a very good article, but I believe Robert Ebendorf is an artist whose biography is worthy of being a wikipedia article. If you google the man’s name or pick up a book about contemporary jewelry or metalsmithing you will find extensive information on the man and his artwork. I still have not finished the article, and this is the first time I have ever tried to make an article. Yesterday’s content was just a test run and is being added to today. Ginarheald (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for move
 * Keep - noteable and sourceable. There's no need to delete as any material at the other instance of the article can be merged -- Whpq (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep a personal exhibit at the Smithsonian American Art Museum,  documented, so there's nothing more to be proven. Thats what notability consists of.  And we don't delete for the absence of third party sources when the available ones are Reliable enough to show notability. Ginarheald, what is needed most is reviews of the exhibit and his work,  in published sources. But Dravecky, they just have to exist, not to be readily available. And  Alchemy, whether one has heard of the guy is irrelevant either way. DGG (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2008 (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.