Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:35, 21 February 2008

Al Gore III

• Articles for deletion/Al Gore III
• Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (5th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (6th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (7th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (8th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Al Gore III and Noelle Bush

Al Gore III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (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 _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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 _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 • 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 _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 _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 _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. --brewcrewer (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- 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 _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 _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 Misplaced Pages 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? Misplaced Pages:Consensus#"Asking the other parent" 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 Misplaced Pages 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 _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)
• 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#TABLOID. --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)

• 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)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates