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 no consensus.  Sandstein  06:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Clinton, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not notable. Relatives of famous people are not considered notable. Drew Smith What I've done 11:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although being related to a famous person does not confer automatic notability, the parents generally meet the requirements of WP:N, in that they receive significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Indeed, nearly any biography of an American president is going to cover the upbringing and childhood influences of that person.

While the person may not be inherently notable, neither are they barred from having an article written about them. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if significant coverage by multiple independent of the subject sources exist ON Roger Clinton Sr., then produce them. Otherwise, he is not notable.--TM 12:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia:Notability says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. So the question becomes is there significant coverage of the subject. There are numerous published books that talk about Clinton Sr. including:
• The comeback kid: the life and career of Bill Clinton? - Page 8 by Charles Flynn Allen, Jonathan Portis
• The dysfunctional President: inside the mind of Bill Clinton - Page 43 by Paul M. Fick
• The final days: the last, desperate abuses of power by the Clinton White House? - Page 146
• Clinton confidential: the climb to power : the unauthorized biography of ... - Page 14 by George Carpozi
• Private lives/public consequences: personality and politics in modern America - Page 330 by William Henry Chafe
• Partners in Power: The Clintons and Their America - Page 30 by Roger Morris
• Bill Clinton: an American journey - Page 122 by Nigel Hamilton
• The fathers of American presidents: from Augustine Washington to William Clinton by Jeff C. Young

That's just the tip of the iceberg and these are published books not web references!!!!. He clearly meets the WP:Note criteria.

P.S. I appreciate the nominator's courtesy in notifying me of the AFD debtate even though nominator knew I would probably disagree. There are few people on Wikipedia who would show that level of courtesy.Americasroof (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources mentioned are about Bill Clinton. Not Roger Clinton. Drew Smith What I've done 14:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the sources refer to both persons, including The Fathers of American Presidents: From Augustine Washington to William Clinton. Mandsford (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link has the details linking to Roger Clinton that I used to post the books rights away. Americasroof (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does he have any notability other than as a relative of a notable person? Getting mentioned in books/articles about his stepson means that he should be mentioned in Wikipedia in the article about his stepson, not that we need to create a separate article. If no reliable and independent sources have written about him other than as an adjunct to Bill's biography, then why should we break away from the sourcing and have a separate article? Many relatives of notable people were notable themselves, or become notable using the influence and advantages deriving from the relationship, if they are still alive after their relative becomes rich and powerful. They may get good jobs, write books, get appointments, or be notorious for influence peddling. George W. Bush benefitted from the prominence of George H.W. Bush, long before he was himself thrust into state and national politics, by being placed on boards of directors or into a public relations job with a baseball team. In this case time seems not to have been on Roger's side. Roger is adequately covered in the [[Bill Clinton] article. Not anything of substance to merge that is not already there. Edison (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I read right off of WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive", emphasis on "less than exclusive" is important here. If topic A is covered in significant depth ina book about topic B, that's just as significant as an equal amount of material written in a lone article on topic A. Do we delete the article on the Colorado Delta clam because it is only notable in the context of the Colorado River Delta? If you follow the logic you're using here, we would delete over half of wikipedia. This discussion for deletion should focus on one issue: whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources to write a full, tightly-sourced article. And people above have established very firmly that this is the case. Cazort (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would apply the principle stated above to articles about relatives of notable people. I would not apply it in general to clams who live in a place, but all species have been found in AFDs to be inherently notable, just like all villages and major geographic features. I doubt that any recognized species has not had a monograph written about it, since scientists have to publish or perish. I say again, if they are only mentioned in conjunction with their famous relative, then mention them in their famous relative's article, rather than creating a stub, unless the amount of well sourced and encyclopedic information about the relative is extensive enough to justify a reasonable spinoff article. Edison (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The standards of notability are pretty high for this sort of article. All of the sources are in relation to his son, which means that a fully independent notability hasn't been established. Think of it this way, if Bill had never gone into politics, would we have this article about his father? I think the answer is clearly no. Gigs (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

I agree with you that if Bill Clinton hadn't been in office we wouldn't have this article here--but I still think that he is notable--and not just through "inheritance" but rather, he is notable because he has attracted significant coverage in reliable sources. "Notability is not inherited" means that him being Bill Clinton's father alone is not enoguh to establish notability--but if Bill Clinton's high-profile status generates significant coverage in reliable sources for his father, as is the case here, then the father is clearly notable! This doesn't even strike me as a borderline case because there are a wealth of sources! Cazort (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Where are they? All I see are books and articles about Bill Clinton. Gigs (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The news sources I give below cover Roger Clinton Jr. directly. A lot of them talk about his drinking problems, other issues. It's interesting material and its far above the threshold for many topics that are (rightfully) included in wikipedia without ever becoming subject to the same degree of scrutiny that this article is (wrongly) being subjected to. Cazort (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize this AfD is about Roger Clinton Sr., not Jr., right? Gigs (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Besides my points in discussions above, there is clearly significant coverage in both news: [1] and book: [2] sources, including the sources given above. The logic/reasoning being given by people arguing to delete is not only wrong, it is dangerous, because if followed-through on, it would justify deleting much of wikipedia! Cazort (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTINHERITED states... "Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents". Reliable sourcing only provides a basis for notability to be established... Reliable sources do not automatically establish notability, and in this case, the consensus has generally been to require fully independent notability. Gigs (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think we need to establish notability by finding sources on Roger Clinton Sr. that don't mention Bill, then I disagree with your interpretation of guidelines. I am sticking to the very basic, fundamental of WP:N. Significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:NOTINHERITED generally is used to say that if you can't find any material on Roger, Roger being Bill's dad doesn't justify Roger having an article. But in this case there's a wealth of material on Roger. Cazort (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I also want to point something dangerously "theoretical" about the way you have placed an emphasis on those guidelines. It sounds like you're interpreting to say that we should be having this discussion based on whether or not Roger would be notable, given the hypothetical situation that Bill Clinton was not notable. I don't think this is a useful road to go down--it's not reality. The sources that are out there are based on the reality we are living in. We can't have discussions based on hypotheticals. I'm not even going to go down that road. Cazort (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just realized that you are using an "essay" which is NOT a wikipedia guideline, to attempt to override WP:N. The general notability guideline takes precedence here...it was reached by consensus. Apologies for not realizing that WP:NOTINHERITED was just an essay, I was discussing it as if it were a guideline which is why my argument may seem confused. Now I don't even think this discussion is worth having. Cazort (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If he were to have harnessed his position as the father of the president in order to do something independently notable, he would meet the criteria for inclusion. There's no evidence that he did that. It is definitely still useful to look at whether someone would be notable had their relative not been when deciding a NOTINHERITED case, but that is taken in light of their actions and circumstances subsequent to their relative becoming notable, which may indeed give them independent notability. That just hasn't happened here. Gigs (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tell me how Roger Clinton, Sr. has not attracted significant coverage in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The burden is on you to show that. So far all that have been posted are sources about Bill or Roger Jr. Gigs (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The weakness the NOTINHERITED arugment is that it is an ESSAY while the overriding argument on WP:NOTE is a GUIDELINE!!!! The GUIDELINE has the overriding consideration is third party articles. Guidelines trump Essays. I don't understand this argument that Roger Clinton Sr. searches don't pull up any articles. The print.google search I posted is specifically about "Roger Clinton Sr.". Included in the search are at least 3 books that devote specific chapters to Roger Clinton Sr. ("The Raising of a President: The Mothers and Fathers of Our Nation's Leaders"; "The fathers of American presidents: from Augustine Washington to William Blythe and Roger Clinton"; "First fathers: the men who inspired our Presidents") In nosing around what's available in the books online, there's a lot that can be added with regards to his father that shaped Clinton.Americasroof (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People have already given it above: [3], [4] Cazort (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger died while Bill was still in college. He led a very ordinary life and received no coverage at all in reliable and independent sources until Bill became famous many years later. Then his coverage was derivative, only as the dead stepdad. It is perfectly appropriate to cite an essay WP:NOTINHERITED to support a keep or delete !vote in AFD, since essays can become guidelines if they reflect the outcomes of enough AFDs and thus express the consensus of the community with respect to an issue or particular subject. They are a useful way to present the views of a number of editors without repeating their entire content in the AFD each time. If a national leader has a sibling, spouse, child, or cousin who writes books(like Elliott Roosevelt, David Eisenhower or Margaret Truman, makes movies or documentaries, is on the boards of companies or charities, gets appointed to head the Red Cross, starts companies which become prominent, founds think tanks, even though the relationship gave them the inside track, then they are notable in their own right. Edison (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spouses, parents, children, often receives significant coverage of the mundane details of their life for the sole reason that they are the spouse, parent, or child of a famous person. It sounds like the people arguing to delete are arguing that we should not "count" or "allow" sources that cover people because of their associations with famous people. Wikipedia becomes increasingly (and in my opinion, dangerously) subjective if we start questioning why material got covered in sources and only allowing sources where the coverage originated "for the right reasons". The material either is there or isn't. And if it's there then the subject is notable. WP:BIO says that notability is not the same thing as being famous--it's about being worthy of notice, about being recorded. It doesn't say anything about why it was deemed worthy of notice and why it was recorded. Am I understanding your arguments correctly in that I am hearing that you are saying we should not "count" coverage that originates for the "wrong reasons"? Cazort (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My position is what WP:NOTINHERITED says:"Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents." I cannot say it any clearer. Edison (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the text from that page, because I find it to be in conflict with WP:N. Notability, the way I interpret it, is about receiving enough coverage in reliable sources that a tightly-sourced article can be written about you. If you want to reason with me, reason on the basis of WP:N: "Significant coverage in reliable sources". If you want to discuss that essay and its texts, discuss it on the talk page--I started a dialogue there and am eager to discuss it there. Cazort (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' Notability isn't the smartest, or the most famous, or the one that cured cancer. It means there is enough information available from multiple reliable sources to piece together a biography. Save the tallest, smartest, and other categories for Guinness World Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:N is the guidline, true. But it doesnt neccessarily trump the essay WP:NOTINHERITED As the essay doesnt contradict the guidline, but rather expand on it.Drew Smith What I've done 23:10, 12 May 2009

Since I see a conflict between WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED here, and notinherited is just an essay, I think it would be helpful if people could clarify exactly why they think WP:N is not satisfied. That's what I'm failing to see here and why I keep arguing with people. I don't think it's constructive to repeatedly point to the essay because I do see them as being in conflict. If notinherited were truly "expanding on" the guideline, there would be a way to frame an argument to delete without referring to that essay. Cazort (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as nominator it is taken as a given that your !vote is 'delete'. Coldmachine^Talk 07:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While a nominator isn't prohibited from labeling his comment, it should take the form of "'Delete', as nominator" in order to prevent confusion. The administrator is not allowed to tally up !votes in making a decision, but he or she does look at how many people have weighed in with an opinion. Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BEFORE. Relatives of famous people are not per se notable, but can be shown to be notable in all the other usual ways. This name was all over the news in 1992-1993. This man's legacy is well-documented in numerous reliable sources. There are plenty of sources dragged up in an easy search as noted above. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The person gets plenty of coverage, and not just passing mention of being the father of someone famous. Dream Focus 21:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Long-standing consensus is that relatives of notable people should be covered in the notable person's article unless they have received substantive coverage in their own right. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 19 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.