Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles King Van Riper

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. The discussion has ended with the two sides arguing back and forth about sourcing, which suggests neither has the upper hand. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles King Van Riper

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO. Somewhat notable in the local sphere, but nothing that really stand out. He was born, held a job, opened his own business/organization, played on local league. in other words, was born, lived life, and died.

Good chunk of this article isn't really about him and what is about him is sourced to local sources. Graywalls (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Massachusetts. Graywalls (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Journalism, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well sourced, but I'm not seeing that he's passed BIO. Seems to hang on the house/building he's built in Martha's Vineyard, based on the infobox below, but I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies the WP:BASIC guidelines by being supported by numerous reliable published sources, including secondary sources. Notable achievements include: building one of the first homes in Carmel Point in the early 1920s, publisher of plays, one of the first actors at the Forest Theater, and founding member and organizer of the Abalone League. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"being the first to do x in y place during z period is generally not a basis for notability. The discoverer of X-ray is notable, but being the first person ever to install an x-ray machine in a dentist's office in Monterey County, California, USA is NOT. "the first in.." one of the first in" some obscure thing is marketing speak. Graywalls (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To try to say Van Riper is notable for "building one of the first homes in Carmel Point in the early 1920s" is dubious and ahistorical, as it only takes into consideration the wealthy white people who settled there in the 1920s. The Ohlone people lived in that area since the 6th century, then the Spaniards occupied the area during the missionary period, and the Mexican land grant settlers during the Rancho era go back to the late-1700's. He was "one of the first" rich white settlers to build an "English country style " mansion in the 20s, but come on, really? Why are the former inhabitant's histories erased? Besides, there were numerous other houses built by European-American settlers prior to his going back to the mid-ninteenth century. This is puffery and exaggerates his importance and is part of the Carmel walled garden. This claim is ahistorical and lacking in context - and in an understanding of cultural history. Netherzone (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, publishing plays does not make him notable; being "one of the first" actors at a tiny, local community theater in a small town of about 600 people at the time, does not make him notable,; nor does being a "founding member" of a hyper-local softball/baseball team in the same small town. Netherzone (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Satisfies WP:AUTHOR (created a collective body of work) From the 1910s to 1930s Van Riper wrote for various national distributed magazines, including Argosy, Detective Story Magazine, Blue Book, The Popular Magazine, and The Smart Set. On July 17, 1920, Circumstances by Van Riper appeared on the front cover of The Argosy. There are many other examples of WP:NP. Please see improvements to the article that address any concerns. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An author's notability is generally determined by SIGCOV about his work...not whether he wrote things, all authors/writers write, that is simply what they do. It's what other people have written about him, in reviews and in literary criticism that determines his importance. Millions upon millions of writers write stuff. I'll have a look at what you added, but think this may be a stretch. Netherzone (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed two reviews for Van Riper's play The Getaway that appeared in Variety one saying "The success of The Getaway is due to the superb work of Miss Heming and a well selected cast." More can be added. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand what independent SIGCOV is. Two simple name-checks and a sentence about one of his plays is not SIGCOV. The guideline states as examples:

• The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

• Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

This is not SIGCOV: Mr. Van Riper does the unusual in his play, in that he starts out with a first act scene of light comedy and, turning abruptly to melodrama, works up to a third act which packs enough excitement to fill a half dozen shows. It is a trivial mention. Netherzone (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at WP:AUTHOR guidelines. Remember, these are guidelines. A guideline is a rule-of-thumb or suggestion.
Van Riper has played a major role in creating a significant collective body of work.

In addition, such work was the primary subject of multiple reviews.

Over 36 citations have been provided, many being from secondary sources by providing reviews and acclamations.

Greg Henderson (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked at the inclusion of membership in a club using the CLUB YEARBOOK, and he did x in year y at place z using Carmel Art something SCRAPBOOK. It's beside question that these things add nothing to notability but even outside of this, the very presence of trivial contents about every bite of food, every breath of air, every step of life based on scrap book and such is a ridiculous. Graywalls (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At first glance this looks well sourced, however once the citations are examined it's clear that the article fluffs up this person's importance. The sources consist of a funeral announcement, or are about other people not him, a press release, short mentions, a marriage record, don't mention him at all, are hyper-local, trivia about his house or the local baseball team in a tiny town he played on. Only one good source exists (Martha's Vinyard Magazine) and one from the South Street Seaport where that small museum holds his model boats. Does not pass WP:GNG as there is not enough significant coverage, he also fails WP:NARTIST because having model boats in a museum is not enough to pass the bar. Just because he built a house in Carmel, wrote plays and acted in some of them in a community theater, and was involved in the baseball team of a small town, and made model boats is not enought to pass notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability criteria, local interest piece. Melcous (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Various things could explain why he is notable but especially, I guess, his ship models and the coverage he received for that (some on the page, some not (see GB for 'Van Ry/i/per ship models'): meets WP criterion#2 for notability of people: "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." The page can be trimmed, though.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank, Could you please provide some SIGCOV citations proving that his toy wooden boat models are "widely recognized" and part of "the enduring historical record", aside from the museum (primary source) where the donation was received? RE; Criteria #2: Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.Thanks. Netherzone (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 02:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! Netherzone (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. However, I'm still not persuaded enough to withdraw it. Government agencies and military have suppliers and vendors, so this says he was selected as a government supplier. This is a book specifically focused on miniature ship models. When you focus on a relatively narrow topic, the only way is to go deeply into it. How do you feel about it? Graywalls (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, to my way of thinking, establish his notability, nor will I be changing my !vote, but I appreciate the effort. Netherzone (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV to establish GNG. Nothing beyond passing mentions, and his body of work has not received the level of recognition required for ANYBIO or other SNGs.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Please see major improvements to the article that help show WP:BASIC, received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, and WP:AUTHOR creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. See new sections under Career and Selected works for important plays and nationally circulated short stories written by Van Riper, and Van Ryper ship models that are now part of the South Street Seaport Museum. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, you don't seem to understand the NAUTHOR SNG guidline. This is puffery. The fact that he wrote for magazines does not mean he created a significant or well known collective body of work. If he did, there would be citations by literary critics analyzing his writings found on Google Scholar (there are none), or one would find him mentioned in N-grams. Both tools turned up exactly zero. Writers write, that is simply what they do. Nor does he pass NARTIST just because some of the patterns for model boats from his commercial model shop were donated to a museum by his son. Netherzone (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration. Examining the citations, it's evident the depth of coverage and having multiple published secondary and primary sources that are reliable, independent of each other, and independent of the subject, meet the criteria outlined in WP:BASIC. It's disheartening that editors are more inclined to delete an article that is backed by extensive coverage and documentation that demonstrate the indiviudal's notability for their accomplishments. So far, there are two votes in favor to keeping the article. Although this is not conclusive, there is enough opion not to delete this article, suggesting that efforts should be directed toward improving the article. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I found 3 citations from Google Scholar on "Charles K. Van Riper":
[PDF] Quarterly

[BOOK] The Collected Letters of Robinson Jeffers, with Selected Letters of Una Jeffers: Volume Three, 1940-1962

[BOOK] Carmel--at Work and Play

Greg Henderson (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The first is not independent, "Quarterly", written by his grandson, A. Bowdoin Van Riper, who is the son of Anthony King Van Riper, who is the son of Charles King Van Riper.

• The second "Collected letters mentions him in a footnote to a personal letter about the value of some property he owned.

• The third is mention/name check. Netherzone (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to update. Things written by family members shouldn't count towards notability any more so than letter of recommendations written by parents/children of subject being taken seriously. Netherzone's analysis is spot on. While Henderson piled on some more fluff, none of it strengthens notability claim. Graywalls (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Building the ship models might add to local history, but outside of that area, he's not known for them. Founding the amateur baseball/softball league could be notable, but there is hardly anything about that either. Great local history, but likely not up to the level we require here in Wikipedia Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist:, list of three sources significant, independent and reliable sources that are reliably published would be nice. Remember, articles written by Van Riper son or grandson can not be counted as "independent of subject". Group blogs, like museum's website contents don't count for notability purposes. Graywalls (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as Mushy Yank. It addresses the "local only" argument: he worked on a national level for the Federal Government and was a major contributor in this niche field. Sources include: Here (discussed above by Mushy Yank), here (New Yorker: "famous workshop"), here (concerning he influenced the naming of the USS Leviathan one of the most important liners of its era), here (chapter-length book coverage). -- GreenC 06:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Superlatives like "renowned..." "famous..." are common in guides. The magazine source you cited, which includes contact info and hours for the museum which means its a travel guide. It's a trivial coverage and being worded "a collection" vs saying "famous collection" is more of a writing style thing. Without significant, independent coverage, a swath of trivial coverage is not a substitution for significant, independent reliable secondary coverage. In depth coverage written by the article subject's son or grandson such as tales of his grandpa told by grandson Bow Van Riper fail the independence test. I'm not able to see the whole contents in the book, but how long is the chapter and what portion of it is Bow Van Riper telling stories? Graywalls (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You disagree on a fine point about one of the sources, I disagree with your finish point. Your sinister-sounding suggestion that "Bow Van Riper is telling stories", I have no idea what you are talking about, and admittedly neither do you ("I'm not able to see the whole contents"). The chapter is a history of the shop and concerns BVR, and it includes quotes from people other than BVR, and it includes quotes from newspapers that wrote about BVR during that period, "the establishment became a genuine war industry [during WWII]", and the book says this quote "recognized the importance of the BVR shop", furthering evidence of notability. -- GreenC 16:54, 24 January 2024 (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.