Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Riggenbach

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 The delete votes dealt with the issues that would affect his notability, whereas the Keep votes simply stated he was notable. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Riggenbach[edit]

The subject is non-notable, and the article is mostly an autobiography. Bob A (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Little or no RS coverage, although he seems to have a decent body of published work. Quantumobserver (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article, until yesterday, when I expanded it in hopes of saving its life, could hardly be called "an autobiography," since I did not create the page. Until yesterday, my only participation in it at all was to correct my birthdate. As for whether I'm "notable," the Marquis Who's Who in America seems to think I am, but what does it know? Jriggenbach (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was 2 days ago, and that edit contributed almost the majority of the content of the article. See WP:AB and WP:N. You seem to be new here, so I don't blame you. Bob A (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Riggenbach is well known in the Libertarian world, and even for those that don't know his name, his voice is recognized as he has recorded a large body of work at The Mises Institute, most notably audio books by Murray Rothbard. He was a featured guest on The Lew Rockwell show just the other day and LewRockwell.com is well known as the best read libertarian site in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.229.42 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only because his books are fairly widely available. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: normally I'd say that as In Praise of Decadence (ISBN 9781573922463) appears to be in over 200 libraries, when combined with his Google Book and Google Scholar hits, the article should be kept. I'm !voting delete, though, for two reasons: primarily, because the article currently has no third-party sources. If none can be found, there simply shouldn't be an article. Secondly, because, as the subject himself wrote above, 'As for whether I'm "notable," the Marquis Who's Who in America seems to think I am, but what does it know?' Well, WP:BIO explicitly says "entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability." If that's the best he's got to prove his own notability, then I don't think we've got enough here.
But as I said, it's mostly about how the article currently contains zero verifiable reliable sources. Per WP:BIO, again: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I just don't see that we have it in this case. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dori. Willing to change if sources are found, but until then it's insufficiently referenced for a BLP. لenna vecia 19:00, 5 June 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.