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 delete. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John David Ebert[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-published author with no RS. Note that page was previously nominated and decision was KEEP. This decision appears to have been hastily reached and was based on the author's books appearing in a wide variety of search results. Some further information: (1) a check on WorldCat shows that all five of the author's books were published by "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform," a vanity publishing company that sells-in directly to AbeBooks, Amazon, etc., creating - as a result - the appearance of wide-ranging results that aren't accurately reflective of distribution or popularity, [the publisher's identity appears to have been overlooked by the original AfD commenters] (2) there are NO (zero) RS (or even non-RS sources) for this entry and a 3 year old unresolved notability tag, (3) subject of this bio has contributed heavily to this entry himself and has stated here that the one external link on the page is to a low-traffic movie review website he manages, further demonstrating the vanity nature of this article (in that discussion he also, amusingly, accuses Wikipedia of taking bribes from RottenTomatoes which is worth a read in and of itself - he is also cautioned not to link to his YouTube videos in this article, however, links to his YouTube videos have subsequently been inserted by single-purpose [possibly sock] accounts) BlueSalix (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the author's books appear to consist partly of his own life philosophy, and partly of interviews with a variety of well known (and, themselves, notable) conspiracy theorists and Coast to Coast AM regulars like Terrence McKenna, etc. It should be noted that people like Sheldrake and McKenna literally do/did every little radio show, podcast, self-published book interview and e-zine guest request that comes through the door and, while they may be notable, it would be very dangerous to assign notability by process of attachment just because someone booked them as a guest or interview subject, as that appears to be a low hurdle to manage. BlueSalix (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He wrote one book that received marginal attention, Twilight of the Clockwork God. It was reviewed in the American Library Association periodical Booklist[1], in Publishers Weekly[2] and Library Journal[3]. However, these are summary (or trade) reviews and the spirit of WP:AUTHOR #3 (and its corollary WP:NBOOK #1) is that we need at least some reviews of the longer opinion type, or academic reviews (see 3 types of book reviews). It also doesn't help that Twilight was his first book and apparently no one saw fit to review anything beyond. I did find a couple unreliable source reviews but they are FRINGE type. I didn't do a lot of searching for general GNG sourcing so if someone can find enough there in combo with the above three reviews I might change position thus the "weak". -- GreenC 16:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search of the Academic Search Premier database confirms GreenC's findings. Ebert published an overview called "The New Novel" in Antioch Magazine in 2004. None of his own works are reviewed, at all. Delete for non-notability.Pernoctus (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did find a mention of this guy in a scholarly text, so there is the potential for more sources. I'll try to see what I can find under his book titles, since the name is bringing up a lot of false positives for similar Eberts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This link asserts that Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith wrote a review of Clockwork God in 2000, so there's definitely some sourcing out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while I do kind of hold a similar opinion about trade reviews, so far there has not yet been a consensus on whether or not to discount all trade reviews. Not all trades and short reviews are created equal, which I would imagine is why there has never been a really clear consensus. After all, Horn Book Guide would be considered a trade review technically but it's one of the most respected ones out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the trades do add to notability and if there were trade reviews for every book I would say Keep, but the trades decided to drop coverage after the first book. I can't tell the depth or character of the review in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith if it's a 4 sentence notice or in-depth. The fringe nature of this topic makes me error on the side of caution towards delete. In terms of trades in general, you're right there's nothing in the guidelines about it, just that the sources are sufficient to write an article with beyond a summary. -- GreenC 16:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith review is here. 456 words. — goethean 23:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Google Scholar, Twilight of the Clockwork God has been cited by eight books,[4] Dead Celebrities, Living Icons by four,[5] The new media invasion by two (but they are in German?).[6] Celluloid Heroes and Mechanical Dragons has been referred to by at least one[7]. Joseph Campbell referred to Ebert in the acknowlegements of The Mythic Dimension: Selected Essays 1959-1987, calling him "an essential collaborator".[8] Ebert's Celluloid Heroes & Mechanical Dragons has a foreword by NYTBR-reviewed author William Irwin Thompson. Thompson has referred to Ebert's website in an online article.[9] That combined with the trade and other reviews is enough sourcing to write a short well-sourced article, which would of course be quite different from the article's current state. — goethean 18:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at these citations (just a random sample, I didn't look at all of them) it appears many were, themselves, self-published books or - in a few cases - dissertations (in those cases the references were singular, fleeting and tertiary and from schools that aren't exactly jostling for the Ivies, e.g. TSU-San Marcos). I suppose those might establish notability in the lowest of interpretations as to what constitutes notability; maybe a kind-of "everyone is famous for something" way of looking at things. For now, however, I maintain my Delete support. BlueSalix (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - a tough call this one but there definitely is a prime face case for the author reaching the basic threshold for author notability as worthy of notice, even though he is only self published. Hard to say if his singular notable title is notable enough but I'll give the article the benefit of the doubt at this stage, especially considering there has been plenty of debate surrounding it. CrookedwithaK (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a strikethrough on this for convenience of the reviewing admin as the account was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet 90 minutes after posting this comment. BlueSalix (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 12:36, 11 February 2014 (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.