Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton L. Riggs

:{{la|Clinton L. Riggs}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Clinton L. Riggs}})

Procedural nomination for IP address. IP's statement below. lifebaka++ 23:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a well-written, carefully sourced article about a man who almost became notable for one or two of his accomplishments. But as I understand WP:GNG, that isn't enough, and I am submitting the article for an AFD review. {{user|Strikehold}}, who did all of the non-trivial edits to the article in July 2010, created a good-looking article with the material available on the subject, but the result does not amount to notability. Since {{t1|Infobox college coach}} was used in the article, the first test for notability I considered was WP:ATH#Amateur sports persons, but his 1-1 record coaching a college lacrosse team doesn't seem to establish notability. The next check was at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0717F93E55157A93C1A81782D85F4C8385F9; that NYT article notes he was "prominent in Baltimore society", something the Men of Mark in Maryland [http://books.google.com/books?id=bUgVAAAAYAAJ book scanned by Google] seems to corroborate, but the dozen or more actual details that made it into the article suggest that Clinton L. Riggs is a subject in that book because of one or more of his ancestors, perhaps George Washington Riggs or Elisha Riggs, and being a Riggs descendent doesn't in itself confer notability. None of the details in the section on his career establish notability. My conclusion is that if there were a Riggs family article in :Category:American families, Clinton Levering Riggs might warrant some details there, but WP:1E (the event in this case being his membership in a prominent family) and WP:GNG suggest we don't have enough for an independent article. 67.101.6.202 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep - The IP nominator is not correct in his interpretation of WP:GNG nor in his assertion that the subject "almost" reached notability for "one or two accomplishments". By my count, the subject is actually notable in at least four or five separate respects (which the article asserts). First, "Clinton L. Riggs" returns 5,570 items in [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Clinton+L.+Riggs%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives Google News Archive] spanning the 1890s until his death in 1937, all of which appear to refer to the subject. The article itself cites two separate New York Times articles (and several other reliable sources, in addition to a New York Times obituary) entirely devoted to the subject. WP:GNG is clearly satisfied by extensive significant coverage in reliable sources.

Second, he was the highest-ranking officer in and commander (Adjutant-General) of the Maryland National Guard. He meets the third criterion of WP:MILPEOPLE as a notable military figure as he was a general officer. He also was a high-ranking government offficial (Secretary of Commerce and Police) of the Philippines while it was a U.S. protectorate—a position that required a [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/access/1869129292.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Nov+01%2C+1913&author=&pub=The+Sun+(1837-1985)&desc=BIG+PLACE+FOR+RIGGS&pqatl=google presidential appointment].

Third, the [http://books.google.com/books?id=bUgVAAAAYAAJ&q=riggs#v=snippet&q=riggs&f=false Men of Mark in Maryland] entry states in its first line, "though not yet forty-five years old, [Riggs] has reached the position where he is one of the best and most favorably known citizens of the state of Maryland." There are no other Riggs in that encyclopedia (see the index on pp. 4–5), and no evidence whatsoever that his fame is derived from familial association as the IP asserted. In fact, the subject is not related to either of those Riggs' asserted by the IP above!

Last, Riggs was the head coach of the Johns Hopkins University lacrosse team, arguably the most important and storied program in the sport, and he was the team's first coach to actually win a game, which earned him mention in Bob Scott's Lacrosse: Technique and Tradition (cited), widely considered the definitive work on the sport. The nominator says this is a "good-looking article [created] with the material available on the subject", but the latter part is untrue. There is a lot more information that could be used to expand it (as evidenced by the above 5,570 GNA hits). Nevertheless, the article makes numerous assertions of notability, backed up by reliable sources as references. Strikehold (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep "Almost notable"? What, like he had it, then lost it? Being the coach of the lacrosse team for Johns Hopkins University is plenty notable enough in my book. Considering all the references cited in this well-written article, I don't know why we're even having this discussion. I feel sorry that Strikehold had to take XX minutes out of his time to deal with this. The extensive media coverage over the years and the content of the article itself more than satisfy general notability guidelines, and if we must get technical, he bare minimum passes WP:MILPEOPLE#PEOPLE #3 with his rank of general. I, for one, also don't want to go down this slippery slope of picking off articles on coaches, especially ones like this that even have Good Article potential. And now 10 of my minutes have left as well that would've better been used on expanding a baseball player article that still needs another 10 hours of work. Great. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 01:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per Strikehold and Agent Vodello. Seems funny that an IP with a seemingly-extensive knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines comes out of nowhere to lecture on notability. I suspect it is a registered user who may or may not have beef with Strikehold from previous AfD(s), and/or has a thing against college sports coaches. Not a single IP I have ever seen in my life, making his first-ever edits, can rattle off the Wikipedia "alphabet soup" the way this one has. It smells fishy and it's a damn waste of time to AfD a great (albeit somewhat short) article. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• I know that people always demand we Assume Good Faith, but in that same breath we can't be completely ignorant and ignore something that's clearly out of the ordinary such as this AFD. I, also, am finding it difficult to believe the creation of this AFD is due to the content of the article itself, and not the article's writer. Either way I hope this discussion is kept short and possibly see a later sockpuppet investigation in case the author has amassed some "enemies" for whatever reason. I can't ignore the elephant in the room. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per the above, and note that WP:WI1E details what an "event" is fairly extensively--being a member of a family is a state of being, not an "event". Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: the NY Times obit seems to erase any doubts about notability. I also concur with Jrcla2's suspicions of fishiness. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. There is sufficient, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. And, as per Jrcla2, the fish odor is strong. Cbl62 (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a general officer alone satisfies the notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Easy keep. As Strikehold points out, this subject is notable under multiple criteria. I agree with Agent Vodello that a sockpuppet investigation may be in order. cmadler (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I would also like to point out that in July 2010, this was featured on the main English Wikipedia page as a DYK. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep. He was the secretary of commerce, the head of the Maryland national guard, and the article cites three articles from the New York Times that discuss him. I agree with Agent Vodello that a sockpuppet investigation is warranted. This IP sure is extremely knowledgeable about Wikipedia for only having four edits, all of which involve the deletion of this article. I'm trying to assume good faith but the circumstances here are making it pretty difficult. City boy77 (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, follow up with possible SPI, per just about all of the above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, passed WP:SOLDIER easily, as stated above. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep we've been down this road many times before, per WP:GNG, among many other reasons.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2011 (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.