Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III and Noelle Bush


 * 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. There are keep/redirect/smerge/merge/delete opinions, which makes it difficult to judge the result. I suggest that these two subjects be nominated separately if there is to be another AfD. Sr13 17:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore III and Noelle Bush
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Both of these articles violate Wikipedia's BLP and NPOV policies. They are textbook coatrack articles. Neither can be considered proper biographies as both are about non-public figures who's primary reason for being mentioned in the media is due to the embarassment they have caused their relatives who are prominent politicians. The material contained in these articles may be fine for newspaper articles, but it is not sufficient to create balanced biographical encyclopedia articles. Until such time as either of these people decide to become more public figures (which seems unlikely) and recieves substantial media attention for activities other than infractions of the law and drug addictions, both of these articles should be redirected to their more prominent relatives. I have taken the unorthodoxed step of nominating them together to avoid the appearance of partisanship which has nagged previous debates. Kaldari 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Kaldari 16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Articles do not violate BLP as they are sourced and written from a neutral point of view. And are not coatracks as they talk about their subjects rather than being baout someone else. The idea that people should only have wikipedia articles if there is positive information in the media about them is a new one to me. BLP is becoming more of a walled garden as time goes on, but this is ridiculous Lurker  (talk · contribs) 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect both to parents' articles. No long-term importance. We don't need articles solely documenting family relations, knee scrapes, and pot smoking, or whatever the hell these people did. --- RockMFR 17:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Must have gone temporarily insane there. Keep both. Obviously notable. --- RockMFR 20:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - "the embarassment they have caused their relatives who are prominent politicians" makes them notable. See also Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, Jr., Neil Bush, and a host of other figures who made a name for themselves by being a headache to various better-known relations. bd2412  T 17:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lurker and bd2412. I do agree with RockMFR about knee scrapes, and the paragraph in the Gore article about his sprained ankle should be removed.  Conviction of a crime, however, is significant. JamesMLane t c 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. 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 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect. If a person is notable only for embarrassing a notable relative, and that individual's bio reflects only those embarrassing incidents and a few odds and ends thrown in to make it appear more than it is (sprained ankles??), then redirection of the pertinent information is the most sensible option. If these individuals were not relatives of famous people, would the information about them in these articles be sufficient to warrant an entry?  I think not. -Jmh123 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Al Gore III, Merge Noelle Bush. The former has been the focus of multiple unrelated stories. The latter has been written about due to a single, relatively trivial, event. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. Not neutral in the context of these people's lives. Avb 18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, both persons are notable as per Robert KS. Callelinea 18:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect. People who aren't Notable by Wikipedia standards except for their relationship to someone famous should not have biographical articles here, because there will never be enough Reliable Sources for such articles. Instead, we'll have non-biographical articles about controversies like drug arrests, with a bit of filler in an attempt at NPOV, but the articles will inherently violate WP:UNDUE. It's much easier to be accurate and non-harmful when we cover these things in the article about the famous person. It's also a better use of our resources. People who want to know what some comedian or quiz show was referring to will still end up getting the information, thanks to the magic of redirects. Cheers, CWC 18:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. per Robert KS. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep both - for a moment when I saw this nomination I thought this was a joint article and that the two were dating and was terrified. Otto4711 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't stand people continually renomming XFDs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep both - albeit a weak keep for Noelle Bush - she has had one series of notable incidents (lumping the original charge and subsequent contempt charges into one series), and other then that seems to be out of the spotlight. Al Gore III has had several run-ins with the law several years apart.  The two articles are not congruent - I think that it can be generally accepted that committing several crimes would make a person more notable then committing a single crime. PGWG 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Gore, Delete Bush (which sounds like a 2000 election bumper sticker) I do agree with some of the coatrack comments, however, when I saw on the news the other day that Gore III had been arrested, I turned to Wikipedia to find out what he does. I was disappointed - there was nothing about his publication, media work, his other work, etc. It was all contextualized according to Mom and Dad. The article needs work, but he is the publisher of a magazine, writes articles for it and others, and is notable aside from them, both for entanglements (Tipper Gore's current work on mental illness and depression comes from a bout of it she faced after his accident), as well as in his own right (both for his screw ups AND for the accomplishments we really haven't included). It needs fleshing out, but Gore III *is* notable. --Thespian 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything that is known about Al Gore III's career in publishing is already in the article (which is very little). If you can add some more information to make it balanced, please do. If you can't, please vote to merge it. Kaldari 00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Gore, Redirect Bush per above. Gore really shouldn't be notable - he's not done anything really noteworthy and notability doesn't get inhereted.  However he seems to have a habit of getting in minor trouble, and combined with his familial links he's popped up in the news multiple times.  I must concede that notability is established.  Miss Bush, however, is another story - this should just be a redirect.  ɑʀк ʏɑɴ  &#149; (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, unfortunate notability but notability nonetheless. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep both. Both completely notable and neither "does harm" per the BLP. VanTucky  (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep both, notable. Everyking 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLP should not be constantly used for the deletion of any controversial article Recurring dreams 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree. I'm getting sick of the over-citation of BLP, especially as those citations tend to be a matter of opinion and are very rarely substantive. Lurker  (talk · contribs) 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong redirect per nom. At present neither subject deserves an article in any encyclopedia or biographical dictionary based on accomplishments/exploits to date. "...embarassment they have caused their relatives who are prominent politicians" would be the textbook definition (if such existed) of coatrack biographical activity. Bush isn't notable as a repeat drug abuser (amongst millions without WP articles), and Gore isn't a notable repeat intoxicated driver (amongst tens of thousands yearly without WP articles). Perhaps a link to the Prius page. Because of his son's driving exploits the tabloids all had a good laugh at Al Gore Jr's expense (and virtually all advertised news sources are tabloid these days). Nobody here has any clue who AGIII is yet; he hasn't done anything worth noting. Ditto Noelle Bush. A statement about what people think an encyclopedia should contain. BusterD 23:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Neither of these is a biography, just a place-holder to say "Al Gore's son/Jeb Bush's daughter got busted." Tom Harrison Talk 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the deletion nomination, although technically correct, gives the wrong reason and suffers from recentism. It is incorrect to say "non-public figures who's primary reason for being mentioned in the media is due to the embarassment they have caused their relatives who are prominent politicians" for Al Gore III. I first heard of Al Gore III before any of the recent events, because he became famous as a child when he was involved in a car accident, or rather, he became famous because of the effect this had on his father and mother. The article itself says "He is best-known for being mentioned in an emotional vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech by his father" - this is not "causing embarassment", indeed far from it. I think the ideal situation is to mention the son and the car accident in the Al Gore article, and to not bother with mentioning anything else. The "embarassment" of the later car incident and other incidents, whatever the outcome should rightly be ignored by history. History books are far more likely to mention the car accident and the emotional speech Gore made, than the later incidents. Wikipedia, by using newspaper coverage as its "notable sources" is failing to provide encyclopedic coverage and is looking at living people through the distorting lens of media coverage. Carcharoth 00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Gore, no opinion on Bush. This is the 7th nomination of Al Gore III with no new arguments presented, so nominating it in hopes of a better vote this time is inconsistent with AfD policy. As to the merits: The references in the Gore article indicate that he's been the subject of multiple, non-trivial stories on different topics over a period of a decade or so, which I think makes it reasonable to have an article on him. If his two run-ins with the law were his only claim to fame I'd say merge, but they aren't. --Delirium 00:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both - the Noelle one adds nothing to Wikipedia, while most of the information that needs to be on Wikipedia for Al Gore III is already at Al Gore:"'On April 3, 1989, Gore's six-year-old son Albert was nearly killed in an automobile accident while leaving the Baltimore Orioles' opening day game. Because of the resulting lengthy healing process, his father chose to stay near him during the recovery instead of laying the foundation for a presidential primary campaign. Gore started writing Earth in the Balance, his book on environmental conservation, during his son's recovery. It became the first book written by a sitting Senator to make The New York Times bestseller list since John F. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage.'" The missing information can be added to Al Gore without merging, as it can be rewritten to avoid any need to preserve the original GFDL contributions at Al Gore III: (1) "mentioned in an emotional vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech by his father during the 1992 Democratic National Convention." and (2) "This was discussed in his father's 2006 book, An Inconvenient Truth and in the 2006 documentary of the same name." - the rest is tabloid fluff. Carcharoth 00:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect both. We do not have enough info about either person for anything like a biography.  ( BTW, the listing of previous AfDs is incorrect.  The first is a duplicate of the sixth.  The actual first AfD was not an AfD but a VfD, and it's archived in the Al Gore III talk pages. Never mind, I've fixed it; it was just a mistaken redirect.) --Allen 00:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both They are only notable for their relationships to well-known political figures.  They have only been noted for their minor problems, well maybe major for them but minor compared to lots of other people's.  Steve Dufour 01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep both - Both are notable. Also, these need to be nominated separately as the closing admin has little chance of determining consensus regarding either since the discussion intertwines the keep/delete/etc. reasoning behind both articles. If the person nominating the article draws the appearance of partisanship into the debate, then they might want to let others nominate the article for AfD. Also, I'm not happy to see that this is Al Gore III 7th nomination. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment they should totally hook up. their kids would be libertarians. ~ Infrangible 02:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Smerge to the articles on their respective fathers, or failing that, Redirect without merging. It's a violation of WP:BLP (specifically, the section dealing with "undue weight", WP:BLP1E) to have an articles like these. The only dubious claim to "notability" for either of these people arises from an accident of birth, and since they are only notable within the context of their fathers, all relevant info can be included in their fathers' articles. If (after due deliberation) the editors of Jeb Bush and Al Gore do not feel that the information should not be there, then it shouldn't be anywhere. I find the example of people like Billy Carter and Roger Clinton unpersuasive, since those were presidential relatives, and neither of these people are in the immediate family of a president. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In case my prior comment was unclear in any way: These two articles are unfair to their subjects since they contain only information about (relatively minor) legal mishaps, thus focusing a disproportionate amount of attention on what is in all likelihood a fairly minor aspect of their lives, since their legal problems are really the only parts of their lives that are documented in reliable sources (because both are non-notable). If we had an article here for every American who liked to get high once in a while... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, keep in mind that this isn't really the Gore article's seventh AFD nomination. Two of the prior noms listed above were speedy procedural closes because some guy didn't understand AFD and kept re-nominating it right after the last nom had closed, and several of the others were no-consensus closes, which don't indicate much one way or the other in the way of opinion. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure from where you got that Al Gore III "contain[s] only information about (relatively minor) legal mishaps", since only a minority of the Gore article is devoted to his legal mishaps; the largest part discusses his (widely publicized) car accident. --Delirium 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing that's three sentences in length is "large". The section about the car accident has almost as many sentences about his father (two) as it does about him. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Al Gore and Jeb Bush respectively. Neither Al III nor Noelle has done anything to bring themselves to public attention other than violating driving and/or drug laws, which risks having Wikipedia place undue weight on the subjects' involvement with lawbreaking. Noelle is 30 years old and the article doesn't even say what her occupation, if any, is; Al III works for a magazine so obscure it doesn't even have an article in Wikipedia. And being the victim of a car accident which one's father mentions in various books is not in itself a claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. On the contrary, being a victim of a widely publicized car accident is itself a claim to notability. --Delirium 08:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case shouldn't the article be about the accident?Steve Dufour 09:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The only reason the car accident was widely publicised was because he was Al Gore's son. Hence the information fits perfectly at Al Gore, which it already does. Anyone searching for "Al Gore III" will get our article on Al Gore, and can read there the moment the effect that this part of the life of Al Gore III had on his father and mother (though the effect on his mother may be at his mother's article). The rest of the life of Al Gore III is either unknown, or tabloid fluff. Hence no separate article. Possibly leave a redirect to discourage recreation, but even that is not really needed. Carcharoth 09:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge both per WP:BLP and the proposed WP:PSEUDO. These are, indeed, pseudo-biographies - both exist principally to detail individual events in their subjects' lives, and their relationship to their more notable relatives. As a side point, I invite everyone commenting on this AfD to leave their comments at WT:HARM, as the discussion there is directly pertinent to this. WaltonOne 11:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:HARM is a somewhat controversial proposed policy, and really shouldn't be cited in deletion discussions right now Lurker  (talk · contribs) 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It should not be seen as an argument with the strength of a guideline. But it can serve as explanation/examples for the related WP:BLP issues, and certainly as an illustration of why an editor believes the articles need to be redirected/merged/deleted. Avb 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing admin There has been a canvassing for sympathetic opinion on the talk page of the proposed policy under WT:HARM. VanTucky  (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No canvassing; WP:HARM is being discussed as a possible guideline and has been advertized as such, attracting both proponents and opponents. FWIW, the AfD is also mentioned at WP:BLPN. In fact, this AfD was catalyzed by a BLP dispute, a BLPN report and an RfC regarding Al Gore III. Avb 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Both are coatracks of minorly notable people, who are notable for being children of politicians who drink and drive. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff they should be deleted and any real content directed to the notable politicians.  --Rocksanddirt 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, excuse me., but when did ArbCom rulings on single issues suddenly trump WP:Notability? These individuals both meet the notability requirement in spades, and their bios certainly are not just collections of tabloid material. VanTucky  (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOTE: "Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events7. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.". In addition, you say that their bios are not just collections of tabloid material. Well, let's have a look, shall we?
 * Al Gore III: the sources are all newspapers or news websites. They are not all tabloid, but the events covered are all the "human interest" stories that don't make any lasting impact. A lacrosse injury. A marijuana arrest and conviction. A scrap of information about the work he does. A comment he made about his father's political plans. And finally a traffic offence. None of these would have been reported if he hadn't been Al Gore's son. This is most definitely a collection of human interest stories, of the sort that help newspapers when they are having a "slow news day". The only thing of lasting interest that might conceivably appear in (say) a history book is the car crash that nearly killed him when he was a kid. And that would appear in the entry about his father, which we already do. Apart from that, Gore III should be allowed to remain a private individual.
 * Noelle Bush: again, the sources are all newspapers or newspaper websites. The event covered is the sort of "human interest" story that doesn't make a lasting impact. A prescription drug offence. There are a couple of quotes and that's it. We learn nothing about who she is, and that is quite correct as she should be allowed to remain a private individual.
 * In other words, if these people pass the notability requirements, don't think "oh, that's OK then", but stop and think "is this really the sort of material that Wikipedia is proud to be producing". Of course not. As I said before, delete both. Carcharoth 19:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When the latest Al Gore III arrest news story broke, I thought to myself, "That isn't the first time he's been busted for drug possession after a traffic violation, is it?" I went to Wikipedia and confirmed my memory: there's a real arrest pattern here, one apparently notable enough for major news outlets to cover.  To the extent that Wikipedia is a resource that one can go to for collected, concise information, and to the extent that it serves this purpose well, Wikipedia should be proud of well-referenced articles like these, yes--it is precisely the whitewashing of the encyclopedia under the pretense of BLP and HARM that it shouldn't be proud of.  I don't recall anywhere in the notability guidelines there being anything about history-making articles being notable while human-interest stories not be. Robert K S 21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this trait is a natural consequence of or an overblown reaction to the "do no harm" policy, but either way, adherents of a delete per BLP policy seem to conflate any media attention to negative events as an evil violation of our admonishment to not print tabloid material. Events in the lives of notable people, which the subjects of these bios patently are, that happen to reflect negatively upon them (at least in the light of boring, bourgeois morality. seems to me most people couldn't give a shit if some politician's kid is busted for drug violations) are not sensationalistic gossip. They are verifiable events that deserve balanced encyclopedic attention. It also seems as if a double standard is being applied here. If this material was part of a much more important individual's bio (Al Gore for instance) it would not only be included, it would be adamantly defended as part of preserving NPOV. VanTucky  (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "under the pretense of BLP and HARM" -- Why would anybody pretend? I mean, what underlying motivations do you suspect?
 * "anywhere in the notability guidelines there being anything about history-making articles being notable while human-interest stories not be." -- most delete/redirect/merge proponents do not mention non-notability as the (main) argument. I personally feel these people are somewhat notable. But the WP:N guideline can never trump WP:BLP, probably our strongest policy, or any other policy for that matter.
 * "It also seems as if a double standard is being applied here." The argument is that we have insufficiently diverse material to write a real bio instead of a WP:BLP1E type incident or series of similar incidents. The same argument implies that "more important" people can be recognized by the fact that reliable sources will provide sufficiently diverse info for us to write a true biography. Avb 23:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Responding to VanTucky, you seem adament that these people are notable and that the articles are biographies about these people. In fact, if these events had not happened, there would be almost nothing to say about them. The reason? They are private individuals, they are non-notable, and we have little information about them outside of these incidents. Hence these articles are not balanced biographies, and never can be. If something else had happened that day, the news would have been pushed off the main pages, and got buried. And the NPOV argument doesn't work either. If this was an incident in Al Gore's life, the incident might get a very, very brief mention, but probably not even that - this is what due weight means. NPOV doesn't mean "mention everything" - it means give everything its due weight. Now in the case of Al Gore III, the events publicised in the newspapers are similarly only a small part of his life, but as that is nearly all we know about him, it comes to dominate the article. Which violates NPOV. This leaves only two options: (1) Find out more about him (violates 'original research' and his privacy); (2) Realise that we can't write a biography and delete the article. Carcharoth 00:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * These are not, even in the most generous definition of the term, "private individuals". Private individuals is you and me, people who received no public attention. These people have received such attention, and if they do anything more notable in the future they will continue to receive attention. If you or I performed these same actions, there would be zero attention in reliable sources. They were notable before these controversial acts, and they would be notable without them. They aren't Daniel Brandt for christ's sake. VanTucky  (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you understand what is meant by "private individual"? It does not mean "someone who has never received media attention". It is indeed possible for private individuals to get media attention, in this case because they are the children of high-profile politicians. You or I could equally get media attention if we were involved in an incident that received a lot of media coverage, or if we started dating a celebrity. However, we would still be entitled to a degree of privacy. It is the very essence of the biographies of living people policy that people who are thrust into the limelight due to birth, or some one-off incident, should not be over-exposed on Wikipedia because we have the manpower to record minutiae from newspapers and incorporate it into what is supposed to be an encylopedia. There does come a point when the line is crossed, and the person becomes a celebrity or famous person in their own right. Princess Diana crossed that line at some point (though she was already notable due to being a member of the British aristocracy). At what point did Kate Middleton cross that line? In these two cases, the coverage is insufficient to justify an article. Princess Diana eventually got to the point where people were writing biographies about her. Kate Middleton is probably best covered as a section at Prince William. The section exists, but she has her own article as well. The insatiable appetite people have for information can be a double-edged sword sometimes. I've just been creating a stub at central retinal vein, and frankly, that has been more interesting and worthwhile. Carcharoth 01:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the Wikipedia definition of "private individual" can be laid out and shown to be clearly different (and indeed substantially more strict) than the U.S. law definition of "private individual", then you may possibly have a point, and in which case, a great number BLPs should be examined for deletion. Robert K S 09:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Responding to Robert K S, Wikipedia can certainly be used to get background information on notable people. But why use it to get background information on a non-notable person? If the son of Joe Bloggs down the street gets busted for drugs, the newspapers are unlikely to report it, so you can't look for an "arrest pattern" there. If there is a pattern here, then a responsible newspaper will cover that in their original story, not put out a short teaser that stirs people to go looking for the history. And no, Wikipedia should not be a resource for "collected, concise information" if in so doing it distorts readers' views of who a person is. And all this stuff about "major news outlets" is silly. If something really newsworthy happened, that item would have been dropped quickly. Just being reported in a newspaper, even a major, reputable one, is not enough. Newspapers have pages to fill, and papers to sell, and on any given day there will be serious stories and some not so serious stories. It should be obvious that stories like this are not real news about events that will have lasting impact, but just 'human interest' stories (I could use stronger words, but I won't). Carcharoth 00:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "If something really newsworthy happened, that item would have been dropped quickly."--let me just say that this is POV to the utmost. It utterly neglects the true fact that the AlGIII's arrests have been reported widely and not at all in a tabloid fashion.  The statement is both neglectful of WP:V and violative of WP:CBALL.  "...stories like this are not real news about events that will have lasting impact, but just 'human interest' stories...": This statement represents a huge can of worms.  It throws out WP:V as the threshold criterion for Wikipedia inclusion.  It says that the real threshold for Wikipedia inclusion is "impactfulness", a subjective criterion that would need to be pinned down first, if such a thing would even be possible, and requires crytal-ballish hindsight and foresight. Robert K S 09:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Widely reported? In the USA, maybe. Not this side of the pond. I'll ask you the question directly: Do you think it is OK to build incomplete (and impossible to complete) articles on a living person from scraps of factual information in various news sources, rather than to comprehensively cover the thoughtful, critical analysis of a person's life, published by independent commentators in reliable sources? Writing about a person is a complicated business. If it is left to "anyone can edit", then a bias towards the immediately available sources, such as news reports, appears. News reports are not intended to be the basis on which to write about a person's life. Any reputable biographer will never rely totally on news stories, and indeed will often avoid them and use the primary material he is being paid to find. News stories may be a starting point, but they should not be the end product. Wikipedians cannot carry out original research, but in the cases of living people, often the only available sources to expand on the bare essentials are news reports. Judging how to present all the material is a form of original research, in my view - it is extremely difficult to give things their due weight, and getting that right often needs further research, something Wikipedians often cannot do. The more considered analysis often has not been published yet, and in some cases only appears after the subject has died, or even years after the subject has died. Until that point, Wikipedia articles can only be collections of reported facts and news. When there is widespread coverage and lots of available information, the result can be OK, though even there, as in Jake Gyllenhaal (a featured biographical article), the  article can feel strange in places (compare to something like Laurence Olivier, where it is possible to step back and put the life in context, something that is not possible with a living person). But when there is a lack of information, the result is often horribly imbalanced, as in these two cases. Carcharoth 11:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which side of the pond do you think I'm on? :-) I do think it is OK to build incomplete BLPs in Wikipedia.  For most living persons (and dead persons) a "complete" biography (whatever that's supposed to mean) is impossible, and for dead persons, primary sources--yes, court records, news articles and other contemporary, timely sources--are considered the strongest types of sources.  What you're suggesting is that everything on Wikipedia should have to be processed through the filters of some historians' analyses before it ends up here.  I don't think that's either a viable or desirable standard for Wikipedia, as it is usually not possible for most persons, living or dead, and it may involve reinterpretation of the facts that lends itself more to distortion than clarity. Robert K S 12:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You could be in the middle of the pond? :-) Regarding completeness of biographies, I agree that there will be incompleteness for some people, but the crucial thing is whether this is because the sources have been lost or were never there (historical people), or because a private individual has not published the information or revealed it. For historical people, I agree, primary sources are good, and Wikipedia should use them for fact checking, along with analysis by historians. For living people, such fact-checking tends to be done through newspaper reports, as digging out primary records for living people is really not good (as you imply). I will say though that accounts of living people should be filtered through some intermediate analysis, coupled with references to specific things to fact-check the essential points. When there is no analysis, and limited available information, warning bells should ring. Where the line is drawn on all these issues is probably where we disagree. For many people, a really small stub just to give the bare essentials of who they are, with no accompanying newspaper dramas, might be acceptable, but keeping such articles in that state would be impossible. I think it may eventually be necessary to recognise that newspapers are rather unreliable sources for information on living people. They are reporting news, not writing biographies. Fact-checking, fine, but critical analysis, no. A short sentence stating what happened, yes. A paragraph giving opinions and reactions, no. Carcharoth 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The immediate family of heads of state are notable. Immense amounts are written about them--almost always for political motive one way or the other, but WP covers politics. To the extent the material is in the mainstream press, they are public figures. Almost-heads of state, I suppose it depends. If there is enough material and interest, then it goes under the general rule. Every presidential candidate is well aware of what will be involved for his family--that they will henceforth be public figures.  Governors taking a major national political role and related to heads of state--again, if there is the coverage. No one at this level can really have a private life. DGG (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll paraphrase/repeat what I said above: It is indeed possible for private individuals to get media attention, in this case because they are the children of high-profile politicians. You or I could equally get media attention if we were involved in an incident that received a lot of media coverage, or if we started dating a celebrity. However, we would still be entitled to a degree of privacy. It is the very essence of the biographies of living people policy that people who are thrust into the limelight due to birth, or some one-off incident, should not be over-exposed on Wikipedia because we have the manpower to record minutiae from newspapers and incorporate it into what is supposed to be an encylopedia, not a newspaper archive. Carcharoth 01:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Is Gore III trying to avoid attention? We know he gave an interview in which he talked about his father's political plans (or lack thereof). Furthermore, doesn't a large proportion of the U.S. population already know who he is? To delete the article in the face of that seems to me like denial of reality. There are actual borderline cases, but these two are not borderline by any stretch of the imagination. Everyking 04:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He gave an interview where he talked about his father? Now, shall we put that in the article about him, or the article about his father? I wonder... Yes, a large proportion of the US population may know who he is, but when they search for him on Wikipedia, the article that should come up is the one about his father. The son is not independently notable. If this changes, then he will warrant his own article. Until then, his article will be no more than a collection of news stories of dubious worth. Carcharoth 10:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Some contributors to this AfD have, wittily yet seriously, characterized these articles as WP:BLP1E infractions, the single incident being "an incident of birth". Many, in the spirit and almost to the letter of BLP1E, see them as marginal biographies on people with no independent notability that give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect is usually the better option. Cover the event, not the person. An overlapping argument: These articles are not proper (neutral, balanced) biographies. I don't believe this argument has been countered and would like to see someone explain why they are. Without a convincing refutation, and if the articles are kept, we may want to rename them to solve at least this problem. Examples: Al Gore III (health and law related incidents) or Noelle Bush (problems with the law). If you think that sounds silly, I think you are right; this is probably because you instinctively feel such articles are simply unencyclopedic. But it's better to name them accurately than to grace them with titles Wikipedia reserves for biographies. Or in wikispeak: it's better to present them as a POV fork than as an article on the main POV, thus giving undue weight to some facts by not placing them in the context of these people's lives. That's right: we're missing the main biographical POV: a description of the lives and doings of the people. Let's stop pretending these articles are it. To wrap it up, this argument assumes that the current articles are neutral descriptions of news items about these people (as argued in their defense by many keep !voters); it says they are mistitled as neutral biographies. Avb 07:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "If you think that sounds silly..." This doesn't sound so silly.  If the problem with these articles is really that they are determined to be unbalanced BLPs of marginally notable persons, then the articles should be changed to reflect the actually notable summaries of events.  The problem is that all this really effects is a policy-flaunting bypass of BLP that could be applied in far too numerous instances.  Better to create balanced biographies of these people.  The AlGIII article is certainly more balanced in this respect than the Noelle Bush one.  Robert K S 10:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, the AlGIII article does appear more balanced, but not really. Throwing in details of his school and university doesn't really remedy the fact that we don't have much to say about him at the moment. What possible reason (other than mere curiosity) is there is say where AlGIII was educated? There was media coverage in the UK over where Tony Blair sent his children to school, but that should be mentioned briefly in a section in the Tony Blair article, and wouldn't justify writing "biographies" on all his children. At the end of the day, writing about living people takes care and sensitivity. It should not involve scraping together tidbits of information from different news stories, putting it all together, and calling the result a "biography". Ultimately, if someone doesn't get a biography written about them, then Wikipedia shouldn't have a biography about that person. And if you have an article about a living person, based entirely on news stories and where there is no true biographical coverage (by which I mean an attempt to put the events of a person's life in context, rather than just merely report the facts), then we should be honest and put a disclaimer saying "this article has been patched together from lots of news stories because no true biography has been written yet - so this article might not be a very balanced view of this person". Does this begin to get through to any of the people who think it is OK to build articles up from scraps of information in various news sources, rather than look for thoughtful, critical analysis of a person's life? Carcharoth 10:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that disclaimer would violate NPOV. Your post suggests that you are voting for deletion because you don't like the article's tone. Perhaps you should follow Wikipedia policy and edit the article instead. Lurker  (talk · contribs) 13:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That was the point I was making. The article will always violate NPOV because we can't write a balanced account of the lives of these people. If the article survives, I would edit the Al Gore III article and replace it with #REDIRECT Al Gore . Carcharoth 13:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be confusing inasmuch as it would give the impression that Al Gore is Al Gore III rather than Al Gore, Jr.? I'm not advocating this course of action, but at least redirect to some appropriate section of the article.  Robert K S 13:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right, I meant Al Gore. Carcharoth 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article survives AfD, replacing it with a redirect will be showing open contempt for consensus, and your edit is unlikely to last very long. Lurker  (talk · contribs) 14:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So explain again how there is consensus here to keep the article in its current state? Failing a redirect, I would edit the article down to the following:"'Albert Arnold Gore III (born October 19, 1982) is the son of former United States Vice President Al Gore and Tipper Gore and the grandson of former United States Senator from Tennessee Al Gore, Sr. He is best-known for being mentioned in an emotional vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech by his father during the 1992 Democratic National Convention.'" And rebuild from there. Incidentially, look at CNN's 1996 bios of the Gore family, and note "The Gores are very protective of their family's privacy. The following are culled from..." - CNN were forced to do what we are doing, scraping around different sources to put something together. Difference is, they did a better job of it. Problem is, those bios are 11 years out of date now. Carcharoth 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is respected because of the intellectual types who volunteer here as editors.  There are lots of other places on the Internet for political activism and celebrity gossip.  Why not take these things elsewhere? Steve Dufour 14:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Al Gore III. His notability is clearly demonstrated by the article, he is known for more than one thing, and has had some significant political impact.  Delete Noelle Bush.  (I'd say smerge to Jeb Bush, but that doesn't exist.) Smerge or redirect Noelle Bush to Jeb Bush, now that Carcharoth has created that.  The article doesn't demonstrate that anything other than her arrest is known, nor does it demonstrate any political impact.  In fact, I'm tempted to speedy delete it under G10 has having no purpose other than being an attack article.  GRBerry 15:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC) (Updated for Noelle since the smerge target has been created.)  GRBerry 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has articles on Jeb Bush's other two children, all the children of Presidents Ford, Johnson, Nixon. What makes any of those notable? Both Al Gore III and Noelle Bush should remain also. Callelinea 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing with presidential children isn't relevant in this case, since neither Gore nor J. Bush are presidents or ex-presidents. If you look at vice-presidents and governors, the vast majority of the children for which we have articles are notable in their own right, for things that aren't connected to their celebrity fathers. As for J. Bush's other children, we probably shouldn't have articles about them, either. Jeb Bush, Jr.'s is particularly bad; the only real facts of note are two minor scrapes with the law (being caught having sex in a car with his girlfriend in high school, and being drunk outside of a nightclub). To be blunt, there's a whole lot of crap in the "Bush family" category of articles. I mean, do we really need an article on Timothy Bush? That one doesn't even cite any reliable sources, and a big part of it is speculation about how Some Dude thinks he might have been illegitimate because his middle name was unusual for the time. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * At least Timothy Bush's article doesn't talk about his drinking habits, although as a blacksmith in the 1700s we could guess that he might have had a beer to cool off sometimes. :-) Steve Dufour 04:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It may well be that other Bush family articles need to be deleted or smerged. Based on what each of the prior posters have said, they probably should consider nominating more articles in this group for deletion, or just finding someplace useful to smerge the lot, eliminating BLP problem content as they do so.  Timothy at least isn't a BLP issue; it just fails WP:NOR.  GRBerry 18:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and revise Al Gore III to reduce emphasis on recent arrest/drug problems. He's involved in a publishing enterprise (Good Magazine); notable even if it's just a stub for now. Redirect Noelle Bush to Jeb Bush. Alcarillo 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge  Both to their parents' articles, while greatly condensing. Cut back to a paragraph. If their names were Al Jones III and Noelle Smith, the articles about people who had car accidents or drug issues would have been promptly deleted. They are coatracks to punish the parents for the sins of the offspring. If they seek public office, go on a joint nationwide Bonnie and Clyde crime spree, or become noted humanitarian aid workers, then the articles can be recreated. Fail WP:BLP. Edison 19:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Neither article violates wp:blp or wp:npov, but both people are simply not notable, notwithstanding their being children of notable people. Startups are not considered notable in themselves, so Gore's involvement in one is not either (yet). If either has a demonstrable impact on their parent's political careers, then add it to the father's article. Cmprince 23:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Maybe they should be deleted. But we can't tell really, because they're being treated as identical when they are not. -Amarkov moo! 04:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've prepared a new section at Jeb Bush to which Noelle Bush can be redirected (following the decision here). I've already redirected Jeb Bush, Jr. there, but I've left George P. Bush (the eldest son) as a separate article, as he has been politically active (speaking at the age of 12 at the Republican National Convention, and has spoken on Hispanic issues and campaigned during two presidential elections. Carcharoth 09:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Meta-Comment. This !vote has produced some very useful discussion. Some of the arguments made here deserve to be picked out and used in our ongoing discussion of BLP policies. CWC 15:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My meta-comments are now recorded at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Carcharoth 10:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep As per Robert KS and others above. DES (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've been aware of the Al Gore III debates for a long time, but never really convinced of any side's arguments. Until now.  I have to admit Carcharoth's comments are very persuasive.  But Robert K.S.'s remark is also quite valid: if we follow Carcharoth's suggestions, we will have to delete many BLPs.  It's evident that much more discussion needs to take place, particularly on whether we should really be raising the bar on what BLPs to allow.  --C S (Talk) 17:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would not need any raising of the bar. Just picking the existing bar up out of the dirt and putting it back where it was intended to be. Steve Dufour 17:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If part of the reason for wanting to keep these articles is that deleting them might hurt WP's traffic I'd like to add my vote to the side that says WP would be better off in the long run without that kind of traffic. Steve Dufour 02:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ??? Nobody has anywhere made a traffic argument in this thread. It's completely irrelevant one way or another, anyhow.  Even if Wikipedia weren't traffic agnostic (it doesn't sell advertising so ROI/click-through isn't a motivation), these articles would constitute such an insignificant fraction of the traffic that...  ??? Robert K S 14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if nobody has made that argument, it's a very important one. Obviously all this arguing and edit warring creates a lot of traffic.  Many IPs only show up to engage in ahem, discussions, about BLPs.  If we were to not allow articles like this one, imagine the consequences!!  There would be a lot of bored Wikipedia editors, I'll tell you that.   --C S (Talk) 16:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Or we might find time to work on more worthwhile articles. :-) Steve Dufour 17:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have argued in favor of WP's extensive Pokemon coverage in the grounds that kids who come here to talk about their favorite Pokemon characters might learn something about something else in the process or they might even get involved in more "intellectual" topics as they mature. I don't hold out the same hope for people who come here to talk about, for instance, "Is Hillary a lesbian?", most of them anyway.  Steve Dufour 21:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect both Neither are very notable and neither even warrant mention in the articles they are being attempted to be redirected to. Maybe a sentence or two at most, in which case a redirect might make sense.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, perfectly notable in his own right. If the content itself is an issue then it can be cleaned up, not deleted outright. &mdash;Xezbeth 08:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Al Gore III, where notability is clearly established and BLP and NPOV are satisfied by the presence of coverage for multiple parts/events of his life, but redirect Noelle Bush to Jeb Bush (without merging). I think nominating the clearly better article for Al Gore III with the more questionable one for Noelle Bush was not appropriate as the former does not have NPOV and BLP problems, whereas the latter does. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete all - not notable. Also, WP:Coatrack. Many people lose parts of their spleen or go to drug rehab, and do not merit articles on Wikipedia. The fact that these people received press coverage (which would be used to assert the notability of a normal joe) is because they are related to famous people, and it could be asserted that the amount of coverage received would itself be driven by a WP:Coatrack phenomenon in the press. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All -Are you kidding??? Of what significance are these people? What significant accomplishments have they made?  Really, would they have articles in the Encylopedia Britannica?  As of yet, these individuals have just committed minor, youthful indiscretions.  If they had been children of schoolteachers they would not have received the media attention or the wikipedia biographies that they have received.  Perhaps they are like many young children of the famous and successful that cannot handle the stress of following in the foot-steps of their successful parents.  If we allow them to have articles, we are little different from the gossip-mongering tabloids or Murdoch. Dogru144 01:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Did anyone notice: no reference for the crack cocaine allegation about Noelle Bush? This is a clear violation of wikipedia policy. Dogru144 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not Encyclopdia Britannica. If we start using them as an inclusion/exclusion criterion, we will become completely redundant to them. As for your other point: "if they had been children of schoolteachers" ... well, they're not. Let's not speculate on what could have, might have happened had certain things been different. I agree with you on the Noelle Bush article (well, actually, we still need a redirect) because a "youthful indiscretion" is all that it covers; however, the Al Gore III article provides more general biographical information. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - Well, let's skip the analogy to Encyclopedia Britannica. Tell me what is significant about the doings of AG III's life that warrants an article.  So he's an associate publisher of some so-far obscure start up magazine.  Does every publisher or associate publisher have (or warrant) an article?  Hardly not. Dogru144 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Every publisher does not warrant an article. In fact, the absolute majority don't. Why? Because they have not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. That is the standard (the standard of the notability guidelines) I use to judge the inclusion-worthiness of a subject. I could try to judge on the basis of the subject's accomplishments, but that would be a completely subjective judgment as different people rate accomplishments differently. I also consider the more subjective criterion of: is the article solely about a single incident in the individual's life that's not likely to have relevance to their life as a whole? That criterion requires a degree of subjectivity, but nowhere near as much as judging the worthiness of accomplishments. The Noelle Bush article fails this second criterion (and maybe even the first), but the AG III article does not as it covers more than just a single incident/accident of little relevance. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You say significant coverage. I say tabloid. He only gains coverage from his father. If you want to mention the incident, it only belongs on a page about his father. Being an arrested person whose dad is important is not notable. NobutoraTakeda 03:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable individuals. Badagnani 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to User:Black Falcon. I am baffled.  I appreciate and completely concur with your above statement.  Now, as this applies to the subjects, they have not done anything of significance, have they, that warrants an encylopedia entry.  I would think that we have no dispute here. If controversy arises, such as silence by parents, or lenient punishments, these are matters that warrant notes in the articles re the placating or string-pulling parents.  Again, there is no agency of action by these two old children. Dogru144 02:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, whether a subject has "done anything of significance" is a subjective standard which lacks grounding in policy. When it comes to notability, Wikipedia should reflect the judgments of those who publish reliable sources; we should not inject our personal views into the matter. If others consider a subject notable (i.e., if they write about them), then so should we. As editors, it is our job to reflect notability, not to give it or take it away. Our personal evaluations of the significance of accomplishments should not affect the inclusion or exclusion of articles. The organisation of content is a matter of editorial judgment, but is distinct from a decision to keep or delete an article. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete if they were important then it is sufficient to list them on their parent's page. Until they are famous for themselves and not for their DNA, they do not deserve their own page. NobutoraTakeda 18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Notability. The concept of notability is distinct from that of "fame". Black Falcon (Talk) 23:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its a fact that they aren't either, only their relations are. NobutoraTakeda 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Al Gore III has "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (quoted from WP:BIO). Ergo, he is notable. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean he was covered in a source based on his father was, which makes it more tabloid than verifiable or contributing anything of notability. DNA doesn't make you notable. When he accomplishes something that a normal person who isn't connected biologically to someone famous would be considered notable for, then you can make a page devoteed to him. NobutoraTakeda 01:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Those media stories were because he is Al Gore's son. Carcharoth 01:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Black Falcon has it right, Al Gore III is notable, even if it is because he's "that son of Al Gore who repeatedly makes the news getting busted for driving violations and drug possession." Wikipedia editors should have the task of evidencing (or failing to evidence) notability on the basis of the quality and verifiability of sources, not judging notability invalid based on their preferences.  And that's the crux of it. Robert K S 02:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * NobutoraTakeda and Carcharoth, in what way does it matter why he was covered? The simple fact is that he (and not just his father) was. Though it might be nice if this world was more meritocratic, the fact is that DNA does matter and it does lead certain people to being notable. Genetic connection alone doesn't prove notability, but coverage in reliable sources (irrespective of the reason) does. NobutoraTakeda, "accomplishment" has no grounding in policy as a notability criterion. It is not our role as editors to judge the value of accomplishments (per NPOV and NOR), but rather merely to reflect the judgments of others. Black Falcon (Talk) 02:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A reply to both of the two above, why they are reported does matter. It seperates Tabloid from legitimate, verifiable information. If we put this guy as notable for alleged crimes that get coverage for a day because of his father, then why don't we add criminals with a history of crimes? They did the same things so they deserve to be just as notable by your standards. Tabloid does not make it more notable. NobutoraTakeda 03:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The analogy ("they did the same things so they deserve") again draws a connection between actions and notability that I do not think exists. Notability is not deserved and it shouldn't be awarded or taken away by editors. In my view, if others consider a person worthy of note (i.e., notable) for whatever reason, that should be good enough for us. I suspect our disagreement stems from a general difference in how each of us defines "notability". Black Falcon (Talk) 04:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability comes only from actions or what purpose the object serves. Simply existing does not grant someone notability. His alleged notability is based on his existence as a child of a politician. You define notable as anything that people have heard of. No, thats "common". Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of common things. It is an encyclopedia of notable things. Things should impact history, not glamour magazines, to be considered notable. NobutoraTakeda 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Notability comes only from actions or what purpose the object serves." Actually, notability comes from having been noted. Robert K S 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, non-notable people with no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 19:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete an article with 8 sources? Speedy deletion is reserved for cases where "reasonable editors will agree" on the deletion. This is clearly not such a case. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD says that speedy deletion applies if there are no claims of notability. There are no claims of notability about either of these people.  They are not notable.  QED.  Corvus cornix 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD also states that speedy deletion should be reserved for cases where "reasonable editors will agree" on the deletion. This is obviously not the case here. If one disregards "son a former vice president" as an assertion of notability, your interpretation may be conform to the letter of A7, but certainly violates its spirit. Considering that notability is proven by the presence of coverage in reliable sources, deleting an article with 8 sources for failing to "assert" notability seems more than slightly questionable. Black Falcon (Talk) 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Black Falcon, are you considering yourself a reasonable editor? :P NobutoraTakeda 03:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reasonable? Heavens, no! I think "omniscient" and "infallible" are much more accurate terms. ;) By the way, your question poses a dilemma: If I'm reasonable, I would recognise and be willing to admit when I'm being unreasonable. If I'm unreasonable, I would not. So, if I think I'm right about this article and am reasonable, I would maintain that I'm reasonable, in which case you would think I'm unreasonable because you think I'm wrong about the article. On the other hand, if I think I'm wrong about this article and am reasonable, I would admit that my insistence on keeping it is unreasonable, in which case you would be led to think that I am reasonable since you think I'm wrong about the article. :p And, no, I'm not related to Donald Rumselfd. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. My stance is this: Al Gore's son is mentioned in the headlines (yes for keep). That is notable (yes for keep). Why was he mentioned: scandal (hmm). Where does the scandal come from: daddy (no for keep). What were the headlines really about: daddy's son does something wrong and thus tarnishes daddy (no for keep). The items belong more on his father's page than his, because he is notable for tarnishing his dad's image (if he does). NobutoraTakeda 17:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notable? We have a acquired a low standard of notability indeed. If they were not related to siginificant political figures these two people would not cause a ripple in very small social pond. This is nothing more than social gossip; the kind a propos for US Weekly or the Star, but not an encyclopedia. How many people have had a drug problem or problems with the law; do all of them need to be covered by Wikipedia? No, not now and not ever. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am a little confused by your comment. I largely agree with you as regards the Noelle Bush article, but you also seem to apply it to Al Gore III? You write that this is content worthy of US Weekly or the Star, but the sources for the article include USA Today, CNN, and The New York Times. Those are hardly mere gossip pages. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, making the sources the arbitrator of content is losing editorial integrity. We have to filter some of the information out there, and the way the information is filtered is set out at WP:NOT and WP:BLP. Only after that filter is applied, do we even need to start considering notability, sources and verifiability. And the content covered by sources can vary widely. Not everything published by CNN, USA Today, and the New York Times is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You have to look at the content itself, as well as the sources. Stepping back and looking at the overall picture, it is clear to many in this discussion that the stories on Al Gore III are part of the "this story will sell papers" type of editorial decision. Society gossip. Tabloid material. Call it what you will. But the other, even stronger argument, is that it is not possible to write a biography about someone who pops in and out of the attention of the media because he is someone's son, for the obvious reason that the coverage is not really about him, but about "Al Gore's son". It doesn't matter what his name is, or what his job is, all that matters is that he provides a story "because he is Al Gore's son". Please see WP:NOT. Carcharoth 09:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "making the sources the arbitrator of content is losing editorial integrity"—How do you reconcile this with WP:V, which states in plain language what the Wikipedia threshold for inclusion is? This is the crux of our disagreement.  As I see it, failing to make reliable sources the arbitrator of content is what enfeebles editorial integrity. Robert K S 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth, I agree that we must filter out some content, but it's a good sign that something's wrong when the New York Times is equated to The National Enquirer. Did the NYT and CNN write about Al Gore III because it would help sales? Probably, though any guesses on our part are pure speculation. Then again, newspapers are businesses, so every editorial decision they make may be for the purpose of helping sales.
 * I mostly agree with Robert KS. Making ourselves the arbiter of notability undermines editorial integrity. Yes, we should have some discretion over what content to include in articles. However, I do not believe we should have the same discretion to delete articles on notable people or to keep articles on non-notable ones. We, as editors, should not dictate notability or non-notability. We should not attempt to award it to people who are not notable nor to deny it to anyone who is. We must only reflect external views and judgments as expressed in published, reliable sources. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't news articles and events like that belong more in Wikipedia news? Just because its in a big time paper does not make it news worthy. Big news papers can still have tabloid style reporting. Remember, their first concern is to make a profit, not tell the most important information. NobutoraTakeda 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if the only thing being reported is a single incident (as with the Noelle Bush article), then quite possibly (depending on the quantity and depth of coverage). That's why I favour redirecting that article without a merge. However, the information presented in the Al Gore III article is not limited to a single news incident. He has been the subject of continuing coverage in reliable sources. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he has not been the subject of continuing coverage. He has been the subject of sporadic and incomplete coverage in both reliable and non-reliable sources. That's why there is so little to say about him. And to reply to Robert K S, Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not saying that anything with reliable sources should be in Wikipedia. It is saying that anything in Wikipedia must have reliable sources. Do you see the difference? And our "What Wikipedia is not" policy is one of the policies that keeps unencyclopedic material out. Verifiability alone is not enough to keep unencyclopedic material out. But really, we are going round in circles here. There is a murky line somewhere when someone passes from being a private individual to being a public person. I don't think notability really gets to grip with that, as someone can receive media coverage (making then notable by the standards you are applying), but still essentially be a mostly unknown and private individual. Anyway, I think we should just stop here and leave someone to close the discussion. Carcharoth 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you have an overly demanding definition of "continuing" (which I take to mean "not one-time"), but this is probably not the best place to start a discussion about that. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:08, 17 July 2007 (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.