Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (8th 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 Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It was brought to my attention in good faith that a rationale may be appropriate. It can be found here as a breakdown of the contributions to this discussion. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore III
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Clear WP:COATRACK for person with no notability on his own. Notability is not inherited, and being mentioned in a presidential candidate's speech does not make one notable. At any rate, this article uses a weak rationale for notability to squeeze-in WP:BLP-sensitive information that is not appropriate. This is the 8th nomination at AfD for this article, all previous AfD's are linked on the article talkpage. Consensus (or lack of) can change and in this case should. JERRY talk contribs 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - "He is known for being mentioned in an emotional vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech by his father during the 1992 Democratic National Convention." - ah, cummon, if we consider this constitutes notability then we may as well give up on the pretence of having objective standards. TerriersFan (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, though I agree that the claim to notability presently in the lead of the article is weak and should be reworked. This article hasn't changed substantially since the previous AfD so this AfD is unwarranted.  My remarks from previous AfDs: Troublesomely trouble-prone relatives of notable biography subjects are in themselves notable when they receive extensive press and enter the popular lexicon (i.e., become the butt of late-night comedian jokes, are mentioned as clues on Jeopardy!, etc.).  There are two examples that I think no one would disagree are notable: Jimmy Carter brother Billy and Bill Clinton brother Roger.  Both have articles on Wikipedia, neither of which gives especial weight to biographical details apart from their eccentricities characterized at some time as being "embarrassing" to their presidential siblings.  Billy was not primarily notable as a beer spokesman; that notability was secondary to his press-getting antics, the repetitive use of his name as a gag on Saturday Night Live and Match Game, and, ultimately, the Billygate scandal.  Roger is not primarily notable for his rock band and acting career; he is notable as the child-abused, substance-abusive half-brother of the president who was included in a set of controversial pardons made as the sun set on the Clinton administration.  Stating these notable facts in the articles on the subjects is not NNPOV, the articles for the presidential brothers could not be merged into the articles on their respective presidents because the material would be out of place there (in fact no details of either Roger or Billy—only mere mentions—are presently found in Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter), and the brothers are independently notable (i.e., their names are sufficiently well known to be the punchlines of jokes and the answers to trivia questions).  The pertinent definition of coatrack (which, strictly speaking, is an essay and should not in and of itself dictate this decision-making process) is that a coatrack article "fails to give a truthful impression of the subject", and to the best of the knowledge of history, the nominated articles and the abovementioned examples do give truthful impressions of their subjects.  Nor do any of them violate the spirit of BLP, which is intended to prevent rumor and libel from entering Wikipedia.  At no point it its edit history was Al Gore III coatrack, as it never violated WP:NPOV, it only ever presented reported facts in a neutral, unbiased way, they never took on a politicized slant or included judgmental language, and they were never given undue weight.  (It was actually the imputed perception of the facts as constituting bias that was the bias.) Robert K S (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Neutral point of view does not refer only to the phraseology and verifiability of the material presented. It refers to the whole picture created by the pieces presented.  A persons whole life summarized on Wikipedia as a list of times his minor injuries caused somebody else a schedule delay, and every misdemeanor infraction of the law is not a neutrally painted picture.  He probably has hobbies, is capable at certain sports or crafts, and likes either dogs or cats, too.  But that't not notable, you'd say... well niether is possession of a small quantity of marijuana.  We do not make articles about everyone who gets busted with marijane and receives a sentence of drug abuse counseling.  "He sprained his ankle is 2000"... OMG I should have an article... I sprained my ankle in 2000 also... I was roller-blading.  You gonna write the Jerry article? JERRY talk contribs 01:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, when Jerry repeatedly makes national news, is covered by all the major news networks and the wire, we'll write the Jerry article, because then Jerry will have achieved notability by definition: he will have been noted. Fighting this article on non-notability grounds is patently silly and has never reached consensus in 7 AfDs. Robert K S (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But what if my mother becomes the next Pope? Would you then make an article from verifiable court records of my parking tickets, j-walking charge, and let's not forget my sprained ankle from 2000!  How about a category Category:People who sprained their ankle in 2000?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry (talk • contribs) 03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see any real assertion of independant notability here. Besides his parentage, it seems that the only things to say about him are a couple of injuries and minor offences, which is the stuff of tabloid newspapers, not encyclopedias. WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTNEWS. PC78 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have long wished this page deleted or merged with Al Gore. Non-public figure, non-notable on the merits. Page has long served as a coatrack for negative sentiments, IMHO. Talk page archives, while overly sanitized, reflect partisan bitterness. BusterD (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as coatrack page, no notability outside of being a member of Al Gore's family. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No opinion. But if the consensus is to delete, I suggest merging it into his fathers article and turning this page into a redirect (which is what usually happenes in AFDs for family members of notable people).  TJ   Spyke   01:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - enough is enough already. Double-digit AFD nominations and the article is still here? Give it up already. Otto4711 (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As nominator, I never participated in any of the previous debates. So there is nothing for me to "Give it up already". How about participate in this discussion with some rationale for keep aside from we have always kept it in the past.  Under your logic we would never improve, we would just give up and accept a quagmire. JERRY talk contribs 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Okay, 8 isn't double digits, but I've never seen an article nominated THAT many times for a deletion. And what's up with this "Consensus (or lack of) can change and in this case should"?  Keep relisting this until you get the result that "should" have happened the first seven times?  Like Otto says, give it up already. (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you did ask "what's up with this Consensus (or lack of) can change and in this case should?
 * 3 of the previous 7 AfD's were closed as No consensus, including the most-recent one, in July 2007.
 * Consensus can change. There is even a picture linked in the consensus policy that shows it:  Image:Consensus new and old.svg.
 * Over time, as we grow (we recently topped 2,222,222 articles, and 200,000,000 edits), we must take a new look at how we have done. I think in this specific case, where Al Gore is no longer a candidate for president, we can take a new look at this, and realize that the subject of this article never really did meet our notability criteria... it is just perhaps more obvious now, since the fog of tabloid coverage has settled.
 * JERRY talk contribs 03:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep same as before, just go and cut and paste it back here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cut and paste a no consensus outcome? That does not seem like sound advice. JERRY talk contribs 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he could save us all the trouble and cut and paste it himself rather than relying on our mind-reading skills to figure out what he means. --Calton | Talk 14:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge important info to Al Gore and Delete. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Al Gore. Despite occasional references to him in speeches, etc., by his father, Al III has basically remained out of the public spotlight. I don't see how he qualifies under WP:BIO. He barely receives sufficient media coverage for the public to keep track of what his job is, which seems to be working for an obscure magazine. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Relationship does not confer notability. Notability is not inherited. Handschuh-talk to me 04:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for really major political figures, their immediate families are notable. DGG (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep he's not really important at all, but he gets nationwide news coverage, international even, even if its only because of his daddy, he is noted and therefore notable.420 rocks...but adderall?! damnBoomgaylove (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. The refusal to accept the results of the seven previous AfDs only spits in the face of any meaningful interpretation. The refusal to accept previous results and to persist in pushing for deletion until the desired result is achieved is inherently disruptive and one of the clearest violations of WP:POINT possible. Alansohn (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not forget to exhale, Alansohn. I think that you are wrong.  Refusal to accept no consensus is actually a pretty good idea, and does not disrupt anything or anyone.  Why don't you go think about it for a little while and then come back and strikethrough that comment? JERRY talk contribs 13:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me amplify my comments. Once you get past two or three AfDs that end as keep, any subsequent AfD is just another stab at trying to find the result you want in complete disregard of established consensus. This abusive practice of creating new AfDs after previous attempts at deletion have failed is completely and utterly disruptive to any meaningful definition of the word "consensus". After all, even if those abusing this process are successful at deletion of the article, why should it not simply be recreated with minor improvements and the cycle started all over again? When will it finally be recognized that you can't keep trying to change the result simply because you disrespect consensus. "Consensus can change" is a complete and total cop out for saying I simply don't give a crap about consensus. Alansohn (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus, and indeed even our policies, can change in 3 years, Alansohn. We are not even close to the same encyclopedia that we were in 2005. A bad decision yesterday does not make a tidal current that we can not swim against today.  And a good decision yesterday may not be a good decision today.  Many of the reasons for keep in the earlier AfD's were based on "allow it time to be improved".  If we were allowed to go back and ask those people to participate today, we might know if their consensus-forming input has changed.  I suspect in many if not most cases, it would.  But we cant do that, and those people may no longer be here anyway.  So we have to start anew.  When an editor in good faith believes that an article is tacitly unencyclopedic, and for the very first time ever nominates it for deletion, for you to make such accusations is a very wrong thing.  I would therefore ask you to once again, please go exhale! Don't panic!  And go sit somewhere quietly and think about what you are saying... you are accusing an editor with 14000+ edits, an administrator, somebody who has never been involved in editing or nominating or !voting on this article or any like it, of disruptive behavior.  I object to your commenting on me and my motivations here, instead of the article and the merits of same.  This is a process where we discuss articles and article subjects, damnit, and not eachother.  So please cowboy up and get over it and stop the nonsense. JERRY talk contribs 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this same article has changed over the past three years, improved over the past three years and successfully passed AfDs on multiple occasions over the past three years. I understand that you don't like this article. The problem with the "consensus can change" line used as an excuse for this latest stab at deletion is that all it means is "I don't give a crap about consensus, all I want is for the article to be deleted". When the same article is targeted multiple times (this one is up to a staggering eight), the broad base of evidence is that a clear consensus has been established. To undermine this precedent, policy requires that you demonstrate what has changed to justify taking another stab at deletion. Sure, if you keep on trying long enough, you'll find enough people to delete anything, but all you will have proven is that one time out of eight consensus is on your side. Consensus is the bedrock foundation of Wikipedia policy. If every single precedent can be arbitrarily changed based on which way the wind blows any one day, consensus is worthless. And if this article is deleted, why should the one-time consensus be respected in any way and the article not immediately recreated? Isn't it time for you to exhale and respect consensus after your position has been rejected by the community a half-dozen previous times? When you start an AfD and you see that you are not the first (or second, or third...) person to try deleting the article, you are being sent a rather clear message that further attempts at deletion will be justifiably perceived as disruptive. This is just about a textbook definition of WP:POINT. Maybe after a half-dozen AfDs that disagree with your interpretation, it's time to respect consensus and move on? Consensus states it best: "It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works." Alansohn (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How you can say that a "no consensus" close 7 months ago is a clear indicator that there is consensus is beyond me. I have asked you to refocus on the article and specifically to stop commenting on what you think is going on in my mind, and yet you make the extreme bad faith comment that "I don't give a crap about consensus, all I want is for the article to be deleted."  I am afraid there is no way to assume good faith on that one, AlanSohn.  You are out of line, you are making me angry, and this conversation needs to stop happening on this page.  Period. And that's all I have to say about that. JERRY talk contribs 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Alansohn might be reluctant to respond to that, but I'm not. You don't seem to have a problem with ridiculing persons who disagree with you ("You gonna write the Jerry article?", "that is not sound advice", "under your logic we would never improve"; "Please do not forget to exhale, Alansohn", etc.).  I think WP:CIVIL applies to you as well.  I agree with Alansohn on WP:POINT, the first part of which is "State your point; don't prove it experimentally".  To some of us, this looks like an experiment to test the proposition that "consensus can change"  Mandsford (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right on, man. JERRY talk contribs 00:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No independent notability. The sources don't allow writing anything substantial about him other that the list of accidents and troubles with the law that he has had. We should have a WP:NOT. --Itub (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: An assistant editor.  That's all we need to know, because that is all that he has accomplished so far.  I'm sure he'll be a force for good in the world, but right now he's a young man.  Utgard Loki (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What "evidence" would that be? --Calton | Talk 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article already has ample evidence. Here's a name check from just a few days ago. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for that source. But question: How is an article about the current president of the United States talking to prison inmates about his former alcohol problem useful as a reference with the sunject of this article? JERRY talk contribs 19:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference cites Al Gore III as an example alongside other notable persons such as George W Bush and Rush Limbaugh. This demonstrates the continuing notability of this person.  He is noticed therefore he is notable.  Someone reading this item might then come here to find out more about this person.  Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not discuss him at all, it just mentions his name with no explanation for the reference. It says "George W. Bush, Al Gore III, Rush Limbaugh and Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy all remind us that anyone can be susceptible to drug problems".  Not one other word about him is there. JERRY talk contribs 20:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The author references Al Gore III alongside other famous folk, presuming that the reader knows who he is. This casual usage is a good indicator of notability.  But non-Americans or future historians will not readily know who this person is and might easily confuse him with one of the other Al Gores.  The article fulfils the proper purpose of providing a neutral account of this person and why he so often appears in the press.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there you go again calling this article neutral.
 * "Neutral point of view does not refer only to the phraseology and verifiability of the material presented. It refers to the whole picture created by the pieces presented.  A persons whole life summarized on Wikipedia as a list of times his minor injuries caused somebody else a schedule delay, and every misdemeanor infraction of the law is not a neutrally painted picture.  He probably has hobbies, is capable at certain sports or crafts, and likes either dogs or cats, too.  But that't not notable, you'd say... well niether is possession of a small quantity of marijuana.  We do not make articles about everyone who gets busted with marijane and receives a sentence of drug abuse counseling." JERRY talk contribs 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The treatment is in accordance with the policy of WP:BLP: Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. So, what the article is doing is presenting the notable material in a neutral manner. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You've linked the correct policy, and quoted it correctly. The point you are not seeming to put together is that this material is not notable.  Arrests for minor drug possession are not notable, etc.  So we should omit the information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability, after which, we will have an empty article.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You completely fail to understand the policy at hand. It doesn't matter whether or not YOU think the subject is important. The question is independent media coverage. The media clearly finds Gore 3 to be a consistent subject for news coverage and has done so on multiple occasions. It's instructive that no one has even bothered to use WP:BLP1E as an excuse for deletion. All we have here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT compounded by blatant disrespect for any definition of the WP:CONSENSUS policy. The fact that the "consensus can change" argument is refuted by "It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works." and that there has been no response to this clearest possible rejection of an eighth AfD demonstrates a clear issue of bad faith here. If this is an example of trying to find consensus the eighth time around, then consensus is a worthless steaming pile of crap. Alansohn (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is ordinary, normal, customary, usual, expectable, and reasonable that after a no consensus close at AfD, following a reasonable period of time (usually 6 months) to allow for article omprovement, if the article has not indeed significantly improved, to reevaluate it in another AfD. We do not normally drop the issue after a no consensus close, unless the article changes to address the problems raised, unless policy, guideline or precedent have changed such that the concerns are now moot.  This AfD, albeit the 8th, should not have been a surprise to anyone, because of the no consensus close last time.  What would be unusual, is if this AfD did not occur.  We do not leave things out there with no consensus all that often.  We like consensus.  Consensus is good. No consensus is bad.  We do not like no consensus.  No consensus says "we need to talk about this some more, just not right now".  That's why we ordinarily follow-up a no consensus close with a good faith review, and renominate if the consensus is still not clear.  This AfD proves that this was a good decision, and this AfD has been beneficial, and good, like the consensus it is attempting to seek.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete He's the son of Al Gore and that is basically it. Notability is not inherited. Also, being caught with drugs does not make you notable either. I agree with the above delete votes. Undeath (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete being a felon does not grant notability - neither is notability inherited, this is the stuff of yellow press. EJF (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think deletion on the basis of failure of individual notability criteria misses the bigger picture. It's not that he's the son of somebody famous that makes him notable, nor is it that he has been repeatedly arrested for drug and traffic violations.  I agree that neither of these things alone is sufficient for notability.  It's that he's the son of a politician who has been repeatedly arrested for drug and traffic violations and made press in all of the major mainstream media for it.  Taken collectively, it's impossible to avert one's eyes from the figure's notability, as sensational as it may be.  (Scott Peterson was not notable on merits, either, but media focus on the investigation of his wife's disappearance and his subsequent murder trial grants him notability.) Robert K S (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no argument whatsoever about "merits" as you seem to be defining it, but rather attention. And Scott Peterson got a LOT of it -- heavy, sustained, and ludicrously detailed -- with (sadly) a high level of public interest. Here? Not so much. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Merge with Al Bores main article if his only notable achievement is the speech. Otherwise keep, as more pithy articles about more nameless people are kept all the time.Brinlong (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not inherited; no other info is encyclopedic — Bellhalla (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Weak to non-existent claim to notability. Maybe someday he'll become Vice President of the United States, win a Nobel Prize, or even more, but now, not even close. If someone wants a coatrack, they can go down to IKEA and buy one. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Media attention indicates notability.  Wikipedians may believe that notability shouldn't be inherited but in some cases, for better or worse, it is.  Merger to Al Gore would be clutter there.  Although this article should be kept, the sprained ankle should be edited out. JamesMLane t c 14:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actual and substantial media attention, yes. This? Not so much. --Calton | Talk 13:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * weak keep Has been repeatedly in the press unfortunately and past consensus has been to keep and there is no substantial new reason to rethink it. James' comment above that "Wikipedians may believe that notability shouldn't be inherited but in some cases, for better or worse, it is" may be relevant- if the media pays attention to something that can make it notable even if we would rather something not be notable. Note that this case is distinct from the recent case of Articles for deletion/Barron Nicholas Hilton‎ since Al Gore III has been in the news on multiple occasions. I'm also a bit annoyed at the repeated attempts to delete this article despite the prior consensus to keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   —JERRY talk contribs 03:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   —JERRY talk contribs 03:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Query The nomination's principle claim is that this is a coatrack. I have no partisan interest in this matter so may be missing something.  What are the coats?  Please provide an example. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great question. The term coatrack is a neologism for an article that uses the notability criteria to establish a precedent for being kept, but then expresses unencyclopedic, non-notable information about the subject that would otherwise not be includable.  So, I am sure that you would agree that not every (or even many) people who get arrested for drunk driving and have the charges dismissed as part of an agreement to attend some alcohol counseling would warrant an article in wikipedia.  But this person's such experience has been included.  Why?  Because we think people who get a DWI then accept counseling should have this published?  No, because we want to discredit the person, or in this case, his father.  Or perhaps we just think it is sensational when these things happen to the relatives of famous people.  This individual is not a willing public figure... he's no Paris Hilton, no Britney Spears.   He can't escape all of his misadventures being covered in tabloids and other media, because his father is famous.  His father is not famous because of him, and he is not famous because of his drinking, drug use, or broken ankle.  But we have made an article about his drinking, drug use and broken ankle.  Why, because his father is famous.  We have absolutely zero encyclopedic information in this article about him.  It is a coatrack, and every drug use coat, arrest coat, broken bone coat, breakup with a girlfriend coat, etc will get hung here.  If there was an article in the Washington Post about canine heart disease and it said this is not a problem only with poor people's dogs, but even rich people have dogs with heart disease, and it said "Anna Kornikova's Bonsai Doberman-Pinscher, Genie, is a good example of that."  Would you expect to write the Genie (dog) article and put down every time the dog pees on the carpet or shits in public? This article is exactly that. Al Gore III has pissed on his share of carpets and shit on enough lawns that we could write about it, but in the end he is just some famous person's dog. JERRY talk contribs 20:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I, for one, have no desire to discredit Al Gore III or his father, but feel obliged to include in an article about a notable individual the events for which he was noted. I don't understand the need for toilet metaphors when making a point in an AfD discussion. Robert K S (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Toilet metaphors were not used for shock value, not to demean the position of any other editor's comment. It is a simplified example used to separate the specific subject from my argument, and I think most people who read it can do so without vomiting.  Sorry if you are not in that "such people" category.  I don't tiptoe on eggshells. JERRY talk contribs 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As you describe it, your concern doesn't seem to be WP:COAT but WP:NPF. There aren't any coats (tangential topics) - it's more a privacy issue. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They are actually very closely related, and niether is acceptable, so perhaps it is not so important to purely classify it for the purposes of this AfD. The coatrack essay says this: "Coatrack articles can be born... accidentally through unintended excessive focus on some part of the nominal subject. Coatrack articles violate the core Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, this is a very serious problem that requires drastic measures. It may all be true and it may all be sourced, but if a biography of a living person is a negatively-balanced coatrack, this is unacceptable."  I think that truly applies here.  Where is the positive information?  Why are we making this guy out to be a real loser druggy miscreant nuiance to society?  Perhaps to discredit Al Gore, and by extension to discredit that for which he stands?  Perhaps.  But it is more likely a good faith effort to make an article, that unfortunately does not have any balancing content, because the subject is inherantly non-notable, and the only coverage he gets is negative, because that's what is sensational. JERRY talk contribs 21:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider this person's sister Karenna Gore Schiff. She seems no more notable and yet is attracting no AFDs.  The excessive attempts to remove only the negative aspects of the Gore family coverage does not indicate NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, you asked me to consider Karenna Gore Schiff. She is an author with a published book on 9 historical women.  Her book has received wide coverage in a neutral critical way.  She has expressed her political views publicly, and they have been the object of controversy.  She was responsible for bringing controversial feminist author Naomi Wolf into her father's campaign, causing him a flurry of embarrassment.  She personally spoke at the democratic national convention, and was one of two people who personally nominated her father for president at it.  She was the head of Gorenet, and as such, received multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable secondary sources.  Her father's campaign employed her as the official liasion to generation-x, and this was mentioned numerous times during the campaign.  There has been wide speculation that she may enter politics herself. She also has written articles for Newsweek, Glamour, Cosmopolitan, and Harper's Bazaar. Bookreporter.com interviewed her. She has been a paid public speaker.  Her own policital views have been analyzed in a context separate from her father's office or candidacy. Her 2-page article in Glamour has caused turmoil among people her age. She was interviewed for a half hour segnent of Larry King Live . So I guess I am disinclined to acquiesce to your suggestion that this person is non-notable, and therefore represents a wikipedia conspiracy that you suggest I am a major proponent of, to rid Wikipedia of non Gore-friendly content and to promote Gore-cruft.  I'd say your point is baseless. JERRY talk contribs 02:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand my point. I do not say that she is not notable - I think that she is.  My point is that her notability is comparable in scale with that of Al Gore III.  In both cases, this notability springs from their association with the Gore dynasty and their father in particular.  In such dynasties, notability is inherited and the point is generally acknowledged in the case of royalty.  In the USA, the equivalent of royalty is such dynasties as the Kennedys, the Bushes and the Gores.  The black sheep of these families are objects of public interest and it is quite reasonable that we should cover them for this reason. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Karenna Gore Schiff's notability is based on her authorship of a book and other works, not on the bare fact of her parentage. Your naked assertion to the contrary has no force. The claim that wikipedia should cover black sheep simply because they are blacksheep is likewise without referable to wikipedia policy. In addition, to assert that Gore III's errors are notable simply because they are errors is circular. rewinn (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The delete argument always goes around in circles: he's non-notable because the article contains negative content because he's non-notable. The keep argument is straightforward: this individual is notable (i.e., he has been noted) because he has attracted attention as the trouble-prone son of a notable person.  The present version of the article doesn't even list his whole record, omitting arrests in 2002 and 2000 that resulted only in citations.  These events are usually reported in news articles about Gore, e.g.  Robert K S (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree.  It is not circular logic.  It is quite linear.  The information in the sources provided describe events and attributes of this person which happen to millions of people (please understand that I am saying that newspaper articles are written about a lot of people who are charged with crimes like DUI and drug possession.)  And these millions of people are not written about in wikipedia.  Why?  Because the information is not the kind of information that defines their notability.  It does not matter that we can verify it... heck, it is all true.  Being true and being verifiable are not the problem.  The problem is that they are not details we commonly write about a person.  If we had valid reasons other than this material to have this person's article here, then we would probably be remiss to not include this information.  But absent any valid reason to have this person here, we just have a smear article.  It is by no means balanced.  The events we cover are probably a sum total of 1000 minutes of this person's life.  They are the only 1000 minutes we know anything about, because he is non-notable.  So, of the 2.5 Million minutes of this person's awaken adult life, we are taking 1000 of them and effectively saying "this is what this guy is about".  Or more eloquently, we are saying he is the "trouble-prone son of a notable person", based on 0.04% of his actual life.  That is substantially imbalanced.  Whether some other Gore articles need to be deleted or not, I do not know; I did not look at any.  Might be a good idea to actually do that.  We'll see, after this article is deleted. JERRY talk contribs 23:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Millions of people don't have their busts run on the AP wire. The arguments you're making have been made 7 times before, and each time in the past not enough editors have bought into them. Robert K S (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Thank-you! They have been made 7 times before because they were right. And change, she is a beautiful thing. JERRY talk contribs 00:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting logic. Not only were the arguments made 7 times before, they failed 7 times before.  If an article is deleted, it usually does not come back later for people to discuss whether the consensus has "changed", because there is nothing to discuss.  If it is kept, of course, then it can be renominated seven times or more until someone gets a "beautiful" result.  I think we all know that the AfD process doesn't work both ways.  Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, that is a naive statement. Deleted articles are only salted in unusual circumstances.  Normally anybody can create a new article where one was previously deleted without any controversy, as long as it meets the basic criteria for inclusion (WP:N, WP:ATT, WP:NPOV).  Editors who do not want to create the new article themselves can also go to AfC and request help writing it.  If they feel that there is valid reason to just undelete the article that used to exist without recreating it, they can put in a request to have it restored or userfied at DRV.  And if the new article still does not meet the inclusion criteria, there are always other alternatives.
 * Let's not mischaracterize the last AfD. It was closed as "no consensus".  It is standard, normal, usual, and customary for such closures to result in renomination approximately six months later.
 * "Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group making a decision does so on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. If the community disagrees, the decision was badly founded, or views change, then the updated consensus replaces the old one. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." (- WP:CCC)JERRY talk contribs 17:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you just crossed the line with that remark, Jerry. How dare you accuse me or anyone else on here of being "naive".  I think you've insulted enough people that you need a more official reminder of what it means to be civil.  Mandsford (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we come from different parts of the English-speaking world, and our understanding of the term "naive", and its social implications, might be different. First of all I did not say that you were naive.  I said that the statement you made was naive.  There is a big difference between those two phrases.  In the former, I would have been making a personal remark about you and your experience.  In the latter (the one I did actually say) I was referring only to the statement that you made.  Even a highly sophistocated, experienced and intelligent person can make an intentionally-naive statement for a variety of reasons.  In the sense that I used it, naive means "deficient in informed judgment", and refers to the fact that your statement appeared to neglect all of the options available to editors who wish to create an article after one has been deleted.  I elucidated these options in my statement.  You were referring to the deletion process as being one-sided, and implied that keep closures were temporary and delete closures were permanent.  I thought that the statement you made was in that way, naive.  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Al Gore. Al Gore III is not, despite what many people here seem to believe, notable in his own right, and notability is not inherited. All we can say about him is that he once had a serious car accident; he's been mentioned in his father's speeches a few times; and he's had some relatively minor convictions relating to drugs possession. None of that is sufficient grounds for an article on this person; WP:BLP demands that we balance the very marginal notability of the subject against their privacy and the damage an article can do, and in this case I believe that should clearly point us towards deletion. Terraxos (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - If my dad was important and I got a traffic conviction I certainly wouldn't expect a Wikipedia article for it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: I came in here to say that... :P Delete per WP:COATRACK and nom. seicer  |  talk  |  contribs  23:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Terraxos sums it up very well. Mr.  Z- man  23:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, though we might want to consider renaming to Al Gore III scandals and controversies to more closely reflect the content of the article. It currently meets WP:V and WP:NOR; I think it also meets WP:NPOV because it reflects what has been written in reliable sources. It's not our job to say that the sources shouldn't be covering this person. If we were citing tabloids, that would be a problem, but we're citing reliable news sources. As an aside, I think that JERRY's comment that Gore III is "just some famous person's dog" is a much more serious violation of WP:BLP than anything in the article itself could be. *** Crotalus *** 00:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:NOTE & above arguments. Seriously guys, no consensus to delete after 8 tries?!? Do you think everyone is going to change their mind all of a sudden? — BQZip01 —  talk 00:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I expect editors to change their minds from time to time, certainly. Why not? rewinn (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't comment on any of the previous ones (that I can recall), its not a matter of changing everyone's mind. We have thousands of active editors, only 5-20 participate in an average AFD debate. Mr.  Z- man  08:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ATTACK. Seems like the only reason the article exists is to defame him. I'm not proud of what he has done, but if hes done nothing else, we can't have a one-topic biography. MrPrada (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the only notable thing he has done is get a Prius up to 100 mph. That definitely merits mention at Prius. rewinn (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cumulus Clouds. Will (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per my arguments in like four or five other nominations of this article. Gore III is not, in and of himself, notable. He has only attracted media attention as a result of his birth. Can you imagine what this place would look like if we had an article for every kid who smoked pot and got a ticket? The trend toward having (mildly defamatory) articles on the non-notable children of notable politicians is something that needs to change. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of the arguments articulated in this thread also came up in Articles for deletion/Jeb Bush, Jr. (third nomination), which ended up being deleted. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That example is a good illustration of why redirection to Al Gore is not a good idea. The Jeb Bush, Jr. article apparently still exists (blue link) and if you click on it, you then go to an article called Jeb Bush.  At first sight, this might be the person in question, and you need to remember to double-check who's who to sort out which generation the article and name refers to.  Since there are apparently at least three Al Gores, it's even worse in that case.  Please remember that the articles are to be read by people who don't know all this background to start with. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that is a problem. I updated the wikilink for the redirect at Jeb Bush, Jr., so it now redirects directly to the section that discusses him ("Family") in the father's article Jeb Bush. We might want to put a hatnote on the article as well.  EG: "Jeb Bush, Jr. redirects here; information about that person can be found in the "family" section of this article."  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 17:38, 25 February 2008 (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.