This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Richard Ebeling/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Good start - Needs a more flushing out, Infobox, references, See Also
Hi. I've never added anything to Wiki before, but I wanted to add a small comment this time. I was a student of Dr. Richard Ebeling's a number of years ago. I addition to his academic credentials, (which do match with what his students and colleagues know of him), he is a compelling lecturer with an interesting speaking style. He invited me to think and provoked me to laugh! If you ever get a chance to hear him in person, seize the chance, even if you hold opposing viewpoints. You will find respectful and lively discourse and intellectual exercise. ToofLady (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last edited at 06:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC).
Substituted at 04:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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.
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)[reply]
