Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (6th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore III[edit]

Al Gore III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I believe that this article should be deleted because the subject is non-notable. Al Gore is very notable, but his son hasn't really done anything himself. Right from the article: "He is best-known for being mentioned in an emotional vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech by his father during the 1992 Democratic National Convention." He was also arrested for a misdemeanor, committed a traffic violation, and worked for a non-notable magazine. If we had an article for every person who got a ticket or had a job, we'd have a lot of pages. I mean, we already DO have a lot of pages, but... I think you get my point. Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that the page in question has been nominated for deletion before. All previous AFDs are linked on the article's talk page. Please also bear in mind that consensus can change, so there's nothing wrong with a re-nomination here for further discussion. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that notability is not inherited. Arkyan 15:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - perfectly normal (read: non-notable) life. Awyong J. M. Salleh 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Al Gore: this is the fifth, I repeat, fifth nomination for this page. I agree with the contention that Al Gore III's notability stems entirely from his father. However, events in his life have affected his father, and so those events do have notability. Until he does enough to be notable in his own right, any information about him belongs on his father's page. I have spoken. Alba 16:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alba, it looks as if this is actually the sixth nomination for deletion, the first one was so old that someone just incorporated it into the talk page of the article. Unusual, but there you have it. (jarbarf) 18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Al Gore: not really notable but could be incorporated into his father's page ElHornberg 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think you are confusing "historical importance" with verifiability. Notability, for inclusion in Wikipedia, means that the subject has been referenced in "multiple, non trivial sources". The article is well referenced, and non of the sources are trivial. Trivial would be a blog or a telephone directory. Also for this vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the other 4 votes for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without expressing an opinion on this nomination, per WP:NOTE "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Simply being "referenced" is insufficient. Otto4711 17:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge or just redirect, either will do. Clearly not independently notable. I fail to see what good a redirect at Al Gore III will do, since it's pretty clear where to look if it's not there, but we could do without discussing this every five minutes, soi it might do the trick there. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I don't know that this person warrants an article at this time, however, the information itself is reasonable to include in his father's page. I'd also like some information on Sarah Gore, though it's possible there is a dearth of information on her. FrozenPurpleCube 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:BIO's The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (at the very least, the 2 CNN articles) and thus is indisputably notable, as notability is not subjective. While some may argue that ethically, he shouldn't be notable, he is, and we'll just have to cry ourselves to sleep at night over it. WilyD 17:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richard Arthur Norton, satisfies WP:BIO and verifiability policies through and through. (jarbarf) 18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the mere existence of multiple works on a subject hasn't always been enough in the past: the articles must also have something to say about the subject, and none of the articles about Gore III seem to do so. As precedent, I'd offer other AFDs for otherwise non-notable celebrity children, including Sean Preston Federline, Brooklyn Beckham, Maddox Jolie-Pitt, etc. Gore III isn't an infant, but he seems equally non-notable outside of the context of his father (at least to my eyes). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm - I don't know about that, but it seems to me that the criterion of Somebody finds them notable to cover in the press is a far more NPOV criterion for notability than I don't think they're important. WilyD 18:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's tough to decide but I side with the non-subjective notability people here, and that notability != significance. It seems like he shouldn't be notable, but he has been. Partly that's his political-child foibles like getting arrested. Partly that's his dad's fault for constantly telling the story about the accident. This doesn't apply to all children of politicians, but circumstances have made him notable. Disclaimer: I have edited this article and those of other political relatives.--Dhartung | Talk 19:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Al Gore. There is not enough information available about Al Gore III to write a balanced encyclopedia article. Kaldari 19:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable only for being arrested for a minor violation. -Will Beback · † · 20:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having admitted that he's notable, care to explain why you think the article should be deleted anyways? WilyD 20:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Al Gore III is notable for several reasons. He is the son of a very vocal former Vice President, who refers to his son in his speeches and movies. And the son comments on his father's future ambitions and he edits a magazine that is a advertisement for Al Gore. And finally, I vote to keep per Richard Arthur Norton and isn't this like the fifth vote on this topic and keep keeps taking the day?--Getaway 20:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all it took to get an article here were public comments on Al Gore's ambitions, then I should have an article, and the magazine, whatever its subject matter, is a non-notable not-for-profit publication with a claimed subscriber base of 11,000. Also, this is a discussion, not a vote, and only one of the previous five AFDs on the article was closed with a consensus to keep. A second was closed with no consensus, and the other three were immediate procedural closes by an administrator. It hasn't been discussed in this venue in about six months, which doesn't seem like an unreasonably short amount of time. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia runs on consensus, and sooner or later the perpetually-losing side of a discussion has to suck up, deal with the fact that it lost, and move on. Ravenswing 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are aware that the section you quote refers to the merits of a subject changing with new information or wider prominence. That policy, come to that, addresses the situation more pertinent here, that of persistent hammering at existing consensus by dissidents who just plain don't like it: "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors ... Enlarging the pool will prevent the railroading of articles by a dedicated few. In the case of a small group of editors who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a larger group of editors, it is worth considering that they may be mistaken." Your constant and verbose advocacy on this AfD isn't, IMHO, doing your cause much good. Either you have a good case or a bad one, but it doesn't need constant repetition. Ravenswing 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I resent being lumped in with some anonymous cabal of nogoodniks, just because it's more convenient for you to believe that this is the case. You're assuming bad faith on my part, without justification for doing so. I nominated this article for deletion simply because I don't think it can ever be made into a good article, and because the most recent discussions about a possible disposition fizzled out without a proper resolution. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(shrugs) If you resent the very policy you cited being quoted, no one's likely to be able to help that. If you likewise resent your constant and verbose advocacy of a very simple premise being categorized as such, that's entirely in your hands. Either we agree with you or we don't, and repeated hectoring won't change that one way or the other. Ravenswing 16:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly because this seems to be a I don't like it nomination and I will suppose it was due to principles and not bad faith. Alf photoman 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep although WP:CCC it hasn't over five or six or however-many nominations; can we just move on? He's not the most notable person in WP, nor the least notable person in WP. Infants of famous people tend to not have articles (Sean Preston Federline, Brooklyn Beckham, Maddox Jolie-Pitt, as pointed out by the nominator), but some adolescent kids do: Prince Harry, and adult other relatives do as well: Alois Hitler, Jr., Angela Hitler, and some of their kids, parents, grandparents, see the various links on the Adolf Hitler article, all of whose basic claim to notability is derived from Adolf. Carlossuarez46 21:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point, but I'm not sure that I agree with your examples. Prince Harry is a member of a royal family, and the current consensus seems to be that royals are intrinsically notable. The Hitler example is a better one, but I'm still not convinced, since Hitler is substantially more important than Gore when considered from a historical standpoint. I mean, Hitler was the top leader of his country for more than ten years, as well as the instigator of one of the largest conflicts in world history. Gore has a lot of work ahead of him if he wants to meet that standard, y'know? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This brings to memory the following quote "Hello, I’m Al Gore and I used to be the next President of the United States".  ;-) (jarbarf) 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The only assertion of notability in the article is who his dad is, which is not an assertion of notability for the subject. —Doug Bell talk 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because he played a prominent role in two of his father's national campaigns, albeit in an indirect manner. As a reference point in a major convention speech, during Gore Jr.'s first Vice-presidential campaign, and as a source of negative publicity, during his second unsuccessful presidential campaign. He's also mentioned repeatedly in a book decrying legacy preferences. Wish I could remember the title. Ruthfulbarbarity 00:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is about a non-notable offspring of a politician. Edison 06:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. Can we stop continually nominating things until we get the desired result, please? Meets "notability" standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do people keep talking about continuous nominations? There have only been two AFDs on this topic that went full-term, it's been almost six months since the last one, and I wasn't the nominator for either one of 'em. If you think he's notable for whatever reason and that it should be kept, that's great. I disagree with you, but this is Wikipedia, where disagreement falls somewhere between food and oxygen. Just make sure you're basing your argument on something real instead of on some bizarre abstract point about the number of past nominations. The only real value in any past nomination comes from reading it and using those opinions to help form your own. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!): You have responded to each and every comment on this AFDs. I don't think you are helping your position by your constant cheerleading for deletion. In my mind, it makes your case look less strong because you feel the need to respond to each every comment and come up with a way to minimize or belittle the opinions of those who believe that the article should stay. It also hurts your cause because it makes you look less than neutral in your editing and your sponsorship of deletion. It is the fifth nomination for deletion and there is a constant pattern, as you suggest, but the pattern is for keep not the other way around. As Shakespeare said, "I one doth protest too much". (I paraphase badly.)--Getaway 17:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in an earlier comment, an AFD is a discussion, not a vote. What kind of a discussion doesn't include responses to other people's comments? If we're all just going to sit here and keep our opinions in little boxes, why even bother to post in the first place? If anything, discussion is needed more on this article than on the average one, since there's so little past consensus on the subject. The ancient VFD was deadlocked 5-4 in favor of deletion, the most exhaustive AFD closed without consensus, and there are reams and reams of discussion on the article's talk page since the last AFD, with people voicing basically every opinion under the sun (keep it as it is, keep the article but remove the arrests, add the arrests to Gore's article and convert this one to a redirect, delete it outright, etc.). I could've just Boldly Merged the article with Al Gore and had done with it, but I wanted to have one last go at establishing an actual consensus one way or the other. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because there's something to be said for trying the same thing over and over to get the desired result. At one point, you have to stand up and say "stop it, already." --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds kinda like you're invoking WP:SNOW here, Jeff? —Doug Bell talk 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would never advocate such nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then what's the issue with having however many AfD's on an article that people want? It's just following process...you seemed to be arguing that we should shortcut the process here. Maybe I'm misreading your statement? —Doug Bell talk 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the same reasons given for Jeb Bush's kid; take away the fact that he has a famous daddy and we're left with a 20-something who has been in a car crash, had a DUI, and smoked pot. Is that notable? Notrly. Tarc 19:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and for a few more .... Alf photoman 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • smerge smerge to Al Gore Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re: the Jeb Bush Jr. analogy. It's not a valid comparison, since Gore's son has been mentioned in numerous media outlets and referenced, albeit in a peripheral way, in notable published books over the course of a decade or longer. Merely being in the media spotlight for a brief period of time isn't equivalent to being the subject of numerous articles, news broadcasts, etc., over the course of a number of years. Granted, all of these citations reflect mostly upon the national prominence enjoyed by his father, but I don't think that necessarily makes him less notable as an individual. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Six moninations. Let it go. --Descendall 06:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Six nominations for a reason. Jiffypopmetaltop 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That reason is that people keep nominating it without comparing it to the deletion criterion, and it's then kept by editors who are more careful in their checking of whether the article is appropriate or not. WilyD 16:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 3rd party stories about him demonstrate notability. And let this Harold Stassen AfD award condender rest. --Oakshade 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hahaha. Harold Stassen reference. I like that. In all seriousness though, this is getting a bit absurd. In terms of the children of well-known politicians Gore's son is certainly notable. Perhaps not as notable as Chelsea Clinton or Amy Carter, but notable nevertheless. A better comparison-rather than Jeb Bush Jr.-would be to Neil Bush. I don't think anyone has challenged the notability of the subject of that article. Ruthfulbarbarity 06:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, instead of comparing to children of U.S. Presidents, you should compare to children of failed presidential candidates or of vice presidents. There is a great deal more notability in being the child of an actual president (and thus part of the "first family") than there is associated with simply being the child of a well-known politician. Maybe William H. Mondale should get an article if Al Gore III has one. —Doug Bell talk 16:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Gore_III_(6th_nomination)&oldid=1070450662"