Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Rigg

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Rigg[edit]

Bringing to AFD for full discussion, after a failed {{prod}}. This individual isn't notable enough at this stage in his career for an encyclopaedia article to be written about him. If he did contribute some speeches for Obama, he's not yet 'regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors'. If he didn't, he drummed up some free publicity for himself that we shoudn't be exacerbating. --Nick Boalch\^talk 10:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to see how he could be more notable at this stage in his career; he's participated (in whatever role) in some of the most important speeches of the 21st century, and under notable circumstances; he's been the focus of two publications in two of the most widely distributed UK newspapers: The Telegraph and The Guardian, as well as featuring in numerous other web-based articles; he's been the subject of controversy (although I personally very much doubt its validity since the email in question is never shown); he additionally ran Chris Huhne's publicised leadership campaign. '[...] some free publicity for himself that we shoudn't be exacerbating.' That almost suggests to me that because you don't agree with how he has become notable, he shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. Heck, I'm no supporter of the guy but I personally think he's notable, even at such an early stage in his career. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely after only 8.5 years you aren't prepared to declare which speeches are the most notable in the whole 21st century. Maybe we should wait a bit on that. :) Gigs (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. The sources make it clear that there is real doubt concerning whether he was involved at all in the Obama speech, and being a speechwriter for Chris Huhne is just not a big deal (sorry, Chris, but there you go). At this point the man is really only classifiable as a self-publicist, and he's not yet notable enough as a self-publicist for an article. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an experienced user but new editor on Wikipedia I believe that this debate centres on the maxim that “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper”. Given that I am inexperienced I have referred strictly to the Wikipedia policies on the biographies of living persons.

“Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely-viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies.”

Following this statement the BOLP policy states:

“Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry.”

And continues:

“If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.”

The notability section on individuals also states: “The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person.”

However, that section leaves some ambiguity. “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.”

In this case, the individual’s role was not significant and interest in it is of an ephemeral nature. Of Obama’s speechwriters only Jon Favreau has a Wikipedia entry. Favreau of course has been the lead spechwriter in two Presidential election campaigns. The many others involved in Obama’s speeches, even those now working in the White House, do not have entries, despite news coverage of their contribution, because they have only been involved in one event.

Regardless of whether or not Rigg was involved, participation in this minor way does not merit an article according to the Wikipedia policy on people known only for one event. DesertWeasel99/21.58 29 April 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speculation has no place in Wikipedia. Articles must have references to prove their subjects notable and to verify the information. As several other editors have pointed out, this article does not meet those standards. Drawn Some (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says he was "part of a much larger team" on the Obama speeches. That doesn't sound particularly notable to me. Gigs (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2009 (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.