Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Riggenbach (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Pressed relist when I should have hit close... JodyBtalk 19:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Riggenbach
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article basically comprises two short book reviews. Riggenbach has been published in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (just about the only hits for him at JSTOR) and by numerous oddball outfits such as LewRockwell.com. He has connections to the Ludwig von Mises Institute and other fringe libertarian groups but he seems almost never to be mentioned by the mainstream. The man seems to be a fringe player even in a fringe area and I cannot see how he meets WP:GNG if we exclude the usual mutual backslapping of those who frequent that area. Sitush (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 10.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 16:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete . Basically E.J. Dionne likes one of his essays (which even Dionne refers to as an "obscure essay"), and his second book got a one-paragraph blurb on the History News Network blog (not even a review). The rest of the sources are his own articles or other non-independent sources. It's just not enough to consider him notable. Like many other non-notable writers, it is easy enough to find his own writings, but there is little commentary from others about him or his work. You don't even have to exclude "mutual backslapping". --RL0919 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Moving to a neutral stance based on material found so far, especially reviews of his narration work, as discussed below. --RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – Overlooked (or perhaps downplayed) in the article are his prodigious contributions as an audiobook narrator. Some 70 titles with Blackstone Audiobooks (now downpour.com) and simplyaudiobooks.com. Audible.com has him as the narrator for 100 titles. is but one example, which does pertain in the least to the libertarian genre. His narration of William Manchester's The Glory and the Dream ISBN 9780786106950  is a 57+ hour recording.  (In fact, the majority of his readings are in non-economics/non-libertarian areas.) In this regard he qualifies as a voice actor who has had significant roles in multiple notable ... other productions. In this he qualifies as an WP:ENTERTAINER. Should book narration be disregarded as a performing art? Hmmmm. It is akin to singing or rapping, which is covered by WP:NMUSIC. In this guideline, a musician (defined to include singers, rappers, etc.) is notable if they have released two or more albums on major record labels. – S. Rich (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I could see, his narrations are not just overlooked in the article but in secondary sources. I had trouble finding anything that really discussed them (it can be difficult enopugh to find this for authors themselves). Just narrating a lot of stuff is no more notable than writing a lot of stuff. Independent sources need to say things about it. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Query (rhetorical), if a writer has lots of stuff published by major publishing houses, do we add the material to articles. (In some cases we simply have bibliographies/filmographies/discographies of writers/actors/performers.) And when we see such lists, don't we consider the source of the publication data to be RS? Moreover, what is this "independent RS" parameter? I do not see the term used in WP:RS (except in a link to an essay). – S. Rich (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Independence isn't required for a source to be reliable, but it is required for the source to indicate notability. See the fourth bullet at WP:GNG. As for WP:ENTERTAINER, the guideline says notability is likely if the performer has appeared in multiple notable productions. Most audiobooks are not independently notable productions, even if the book performed is notable and it comes from a major publisher. This is very different from movies and music, where most items produced by a major company will receive enough attention to be notable. If you can connect him to multiple notable audiobooks (possibly ones listed in Category:Audiobooks by title or series) or show he won notable awards for his performances (perhaps ones listed at Category:Audiobook awards), then I'm happy to reconsider. --RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Virtually nonexistent coverage in independent RS (of both voice narration and writing) leaves us no choice, per WP:GNG. Steeletrap (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Absolutely not notable per GNG. It's possible some interested editor could start an article about his first book, which was at least mentioned in passing by the young E.J. Dionne on cable TV years ago.   In terms of notability, activity as an audiobook narrator about as notable as being the PA announced at a college sports stadium and less notable than being an air traffic controller at a major airport, IMO.  I just can't see it -- no RS to support notabity.   SPECIFICO  talk  18:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 11.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 06:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Manual note: This was listed on Wikiproject Libertarianism and Wikiproject Podcasting. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 23:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment User:S. Rich is right that audiobook narrators play a significant role in creative works and thus reviews of that work would count towards notability (see WP:CREATIVE #3) - it's a multi-creative work like a film. In this case the reviews would need to be of the audiobook version of the book, but since there are over 100 it should be possible to find some. I'm personally not inclined to do the leg work but my gut sense is they exist. There are also audiobook magazines which have profiles of narrators, my guess is he is probably profiled there as well. These magazines also review audiobooks. -- GreenC  08:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Book reviews of books narrated by Jeff Riggenbach. 38 of them. -- GreenC  03:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So what? I've had more mentions of my rugby playing and there is no way that I am notable. It isn't volume that matters, it's content. I can't see those reviews but my bet is that they're not going to be much better than the ones for the author about whose notability we recently disagreed. A lot of reviews are little more than puff pieces planted by publishers etc. Are they discussing the book or the reader? - Sitush (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am a subscriber to AudioFile (magazine) and have access to the reviews. It is the leading audiobook review magazine in the United States. If you have any questions let me know. Good job playing Rugby must be rough. Regards. -- GreenC  03:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure I understand, are the reviews in AudioFile as brief as what is shown for free on the website? I signed up for a free "web pass" but did not subscribe, so I'm not sure if what I am seeing are full reviews or just excerpts/summaries. A lot of 1-paragraph reviews is not as strong as a smaller number of in-depth profiles. That said, I looked at several of these and they comment specifically on Riggenbach's narration work, so they do contribute towards establishing notability. --RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Has lots more refs than a lot of articles I could go through and AfD in an hour and potential for many more. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet again, Carol, I feel the need to remind you of WP:OSE - this nomination is not about the failings of other articles, however much you repeatedly bring up that argument. And turning to your superficial analysis please can you explain what the references are and where they are. I know that you often skimp on the detail but we'll need more than your say-so. FWIW, I've been trying to track down reviews of his audio books and am not seeing a lot online, except the usual blarney about Mises-related books. I accept Green's speculative point about offline sources but, as always, someone will have to find them. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What can I say, I was tired from adding bunch of refs to another article that some wants deleted and didn't have energy for this one. Just expressing in short-hand the feeling it's easier and more fun success-wise to delete than beef up articles. Sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think that you should strike your !vote because it has nothing to do with this article. I do a lot of sourcing myself but I don't take out my frustrations at totally random AfDs. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies for editing while I'm tired. I thought I'd edited the article before. Will find more refs tomorrow. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'm going to be having a last run-through for sources also. Just, please, try to avoid the house of cards that is so evident on the fringes of libertarianism: a small group of people bigging each other up doesn't make for notability. - Sitush (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - See Talk:Jeff_Riggenbach on autobio; senior fellow info; 77 pdfs of published articles; Chicago Tribune link re 12 of his LA Times articles; NY Times article featuring him, another quoting him; another book review. I can try to add material if article kept. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 16:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There's nothing on that list which establishes JR as a notable author or reader. SPECIFICO  talk  16:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Per mention by other editors above, AudioFile Magazine link to reviews of books he's narrated. Did you know there is a Category:Audio_book_narrators with over 100 entries? Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will disagree slightly with User:SPECIFICO and say it isn't "nothing" -- there are a couple of items in the links list that do contribute to notability. His own articles, autobiographical material, and other non-independent sources do not, and that is the majority of what User:Carolmooredc has found. However, between the audio reviews and the few other independent pieces that have been found, I think we are into marginally notable territory, so I am revising my stance from "delete" to neutral. --RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - He is a fringe figure who's not generally notable. Sources are thin and incestuous. MilesMoney (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bantering about the "fringe" label as is done here is not helpful. Fringe in Wikipedia refers to a particular type of article and subject matter. When we stray and use the term fringe for stuff we don't like, we are not striving to give balance to views which, while not fringe, are simply heterodox. (Even "genuine" fringe stuff gets some Wikipedia coverage.) WRT MilesMoney's comment about "incestuous", we should be clear that MM refers to Ludwig von Mises Institute. (MM is not saying, I believe, that reviews in AudioFile Magazine are incestuous. After all, the community of audio book narrators is small and they might well complement each other at times. Would such complements be termed incestuous?)  "Thin?" Perhaps so. But notability does not rise or fall on the thinness of sources. MilesMoney actually means (or so I believe) that LvMI related material does not qualify as RS. With the LvMI material and AudioFile Magazine material, the article has more than WP:POTENTIAL, it qualifies as a helpful source for interested readers.  – S. Rich (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're trying to get at. This guy's notoriety seems minor and entirely limited to a certain type of libertarianism. Not only is he published by LvMI, his other book is published by the same fine people who published Raimondo's ode to Rothbard. Unsurprisingly, he contributes to only libertarian magazines. If this was LvMIopedia, I'm sure he'd deserve an article. But for Wikipedia, there just isn't any evidence that he's made the slightest impact outside these very limited circles, or even much impact within them. I stand by my summary: minor fringe figure. MilesMoney (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Minor notoriety, limited notoriety, a certain type of libertarianism, limited circles? All of this indicates WP:OBSCURE. If the Ludwig von Mises Institute is so minor, why do some editors get into such a lather about it?  – S. Rich (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * - Could you clarify that question, please -- as to the premise and your inquiry? Also please explain how it is relevant to the AfD discussion here. Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, you got us there. Prometheus Books publishes stuff like Beyond the God Particle written by what's his name & he's a nobody. See: . – S. Rich (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's really helpful if you focus on an apples-to-apples comparison. This book is found here in their catalog, right alongside Justin's. MilesMoney (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Riggenbach is doing incest with the NY Times and LA Times? Yow. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 23:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per the last AFD. Just being a competent person at something doesn't make you notable, that's what's linkedin is for.  Does not meet WP:GNG.--Milowent • hasspoken  04:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete One mildly significant book., In praise of decadence. (the other is in all of 6 libraries and not worth considering) If he were an important figure even in the limited sphere of the particular libertarian tendency he adhere's to, I might say keep. But he isn't. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Some indications of some importance in libertarianism: Why Atheism? by George H. Smith dedicated to him; senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute which sponsors Antiwar.com; several mentions in Radicals for Capitalism; evidence Ludwig von Mises Institute finds him important 3, 2, ; list of libertarian publications he's published in: Reason magazine, LewRockwell.com, the Libertarian Review; NY Times article that leads talking about him. To pay the $3.95 for the rest of it, that is the question.... Too bad Amazon.com bios not useable since this is most complete one; couldn't find a version elsewhere. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 18:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's too bad that self-written promotional biographies are not used here? Really?   SPECIFICO  talk  20:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * [Insert: If it was self-written promotional it might be easier to find elsewhere; he doesn't seem to be a big self-promoter. But at least gives some info that can be tracked down. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have access to the full NYT article and I think you would find it a waste of your $3.95, at least for info about Riggenbach. After the opening paragraph you can read in the preview, he is only mentioned one more time in the article, where he is called a "counterculture sympathizer", in contrast to Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation, who is a "former conservative". The hook here is contrasting two different types of libertarian, but the bulk of the article is about the Libertarian Party and it's candidates, not Riggenbach or Poole. --RL0919 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Amazon author pages, like IMDB pages and many others, are self-contributed. No ifs involved.  SPECIFICO  talk  04:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seven years and still tilting at windmills, Carol? I think that you need to stop speculating about what sources might say and - worse - what unreliable sources might be used for. It is just adding heat without light to this discussion. I'm astonished that you don't know by now that Amazon profiles are unsuitable but please let this be an end to it. When people like DGG come out in favour of deletion that really is a sign that this person is not notable - DGG is a class act and has a well-deserved reputation for considered and accurate assessment in AfDs. Sure, even DGG probably doesn't get it right all the time but there are deafening sounds of a barrel being scraped now. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why the personal attacks? Certainly more negative than anything linked in a recent ANI against me. And I meant it's too bad that Amazon doesn't do it's bios in such a way that they would be useable, i.e., editor fact check. I should have been much clearer given the inevitable nitpicking from a few editors who are on an AfD spree. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sitush, this is why we've been insistent about the academic thing. Yes, many educated laypeople can evaluate the notability of these articles, but we have been assailed by people who simply can't: i.e. who constantly insert unreliable sources (such as papers by college juniors and Amazon.com profiles) into articles, and believe that anyone with a publication in RS (which includes everyone with a Master's degree) is notable. Steeletrap (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap, I couldn't care less about the general editing behaviour of various people and I couldn't care less about whimsical "what ifs" regarding Amazon bio profiles. This is an AfD discussion and neither Carol's whimsy nor your general comment have any relevance to it. My frustration with all of those engaged in this antagonism about libertarian articles is becoming apparent, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC).


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyBtalk 19:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.