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. Sr13 (T|C) 03:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John David Ebert[edit]

John David Ebert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Subject fails to meet the criteria of notability under WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Subject appears to have written two books, neither of which seems to satisfy the requirements to warrant a Wikipedia article on the subject. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Author does not seem to have made a significant contribution to his field. the_undertow ^talk 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A search pulls up many magazine/newspaper articles on him as an author. Seems to be notable.--Gloriamarie 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be helpful if you could supply some links, or other information about these magazine/newspaper articles. I've sifted through google hits, and can't find any evidence of newspaper or magazine articles with John David Ebert as their subject reliable sources. Pete.Hurd 05:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Amazon carries his books in stock and there are reviews from Publishers Weekly, Library Journal and Booklist. The author needs to firm up the sources but they are there. JodyB _talk 02:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I conducted a search similar to the one above and acquired similar results. --Phoenix (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: it's a decent article, and after I did a similar check, the guy is fairly well-known and notable. - It's-is-not-a-genitive/(parlōc-iōr!)
• Delete No actual references, just one external link, I agree with it not meeting WP:BIO (first section).The Sunshine Man 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there are no references now, but I think it's notable enough for some to be picked up. --Phoenix (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appears to be notable enough, though I'd prefer stronger sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete as currently unsourced and no credibility established. I'd change it to keep if the proper sources were found. David Füchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --Infrangible 01:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above, off to a good start and should continue to improve with time. RFerreira 06:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: A Google search returned many results for his books, and thus both the article and the books are notable. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two books or twenty books, it's still a notable author. --Mardavich 03:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.