Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:03, 10 October 2006

Biography Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30/9/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 22/9/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14/9/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25/7/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

From VFD (5 votes to delete, 4 votes to keep, 2 votes to redirect):

• Al Gore III. Three paragraphs about this kid, one about a car accident and two about a marijuana arrest. If this is all we can come up with, then delete. It seems to me like it's more an attempt at smearing his father. RickK 04:28, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Don't you have privacy laws in the US? Gore 3 is a private citizen and his misdemeanors are not the public's business. Adam 06:07, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Not that I know of: in fact we have freedom of speech and freedom of information laws stating the exact opposite. Since he appeared in open court, the information is a matter of public record. That said, I make no vote on whether this article should appear, but if not, it should be based on Misplaced Pages deciding he is not worthy of an article, not based on privacy concerns, since what he did was fully public. --Delirium 06:19, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
  • Do we have articles on Bush's daughters who I believe have also been in court on minor charges? Adam 06:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • We do. Barbara and Jenna Bush. Maximus Rex 06:38, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Well I would delete that article as well. I am opposed to having articles on private citizens whose only source of interest is that they have the misfortune to be related to someone famous, and particularly the children of the famous. This is just voyeurism and serves no legitimate purpose. Adam 06:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I'm not voting either to keep or delete, but to answer Adam. The only possible legitimate purpose I can see is as a test of the hypocrisy of the parents. These are people who advocate draconian punishments for using harmless drugs that ruin far more lives than the drugs themselves. If Gore or Bush were to advocate the same punishments for their children that they advocate for our children, I would vote to delete. Mcarling 10:40, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • The place to say that is under Bush article, as in "Bush advocated the death penalty for littering, but when his daughter was arrested for littering he made excuses for her," (or whatever). It doesn't mean that the daughter deserves an article to catalogue her misdemeanors. Adam 09:16, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • KEEP. We also have Chelsea Clinton. Many wikipedia biographies are on non-government officials. I don't see a reason to delete, but I'm not in full support of keeping. --Jiang 09:30, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is historically significant because of the 1992 Dem. Convention, which I added. I changed the article to remove the arrest record, which is of dubious historic importance. Davodd 09:38, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
  • Chelsea Clinton is a public person in her own right and by her own choice. I am not aware that Gore III or the Bush daughters have done anything in their own right. Besides which Chelsea doesn't have any misdemeanors that I am aware of, so an article on her isn't just a vehicle for attacking her father, as Mcarling admits he sees the Bush daughters article as being. And what did Gore III do at the 1992 Convention, when he would have been ten years old? Adam 09:42, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Redirect. It's interesting that his accident affected the Democratic primaries, but that's more about Al Jr. than Al III. I've merged it into Al Gore and I vote to make this a redirect to Al Gore (note that deletion policy deprecates "merge and delete"). Tualha 16:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Move relevant into into Al Gore but keep as redir. Could become an article if he ever does something meaningful besides smoking pot.—Eloquence
    • The classic Misplaced Pages double standard the private life of a child of a former Dem US Vice President one time perhaps future presidential candidate not worthy but of course it worthy for the current US Gop president. This group sure make sense.
      • Where do you gather that from (the double standard)? Evil saltine 19:24, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I'm not the individual who posted about the double standard, however if you look at page history someone removed all negative content from the Gore child article while similar content is still the focus of the Bush child article. Maximus Rex 21:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • If you don't think this group makes sense, perhaps you should leave it to those of us who think it does. I note you are using the 64.12.97.6 IP address. Might you perhaps be the same person who vandalized Paul Levesque and Script kiddie? Might you now be trying to generate strife? As for your so-called double standard, the children of a sitting president are more notable than the child of a former vice-president, and there is more material in the Bush article than there ever was in the Gore one. Tualha 00:26, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete both the Gore III and Bush twins articles. I don't see why it's a big deal, or even newsworthy, that Gore's son was arrested for marijuana, and I don't think we should focus on the misdemeanors of Bush's daughters if we want to attack him, we should focus on his incompetence as President. Mike Church 21:27, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • You're thinking too much. The article is not intended as an attack, only a statement of what we know. What you think is newsworthy is your mere opinion. What the media thinks is fact. Due the the media, this individual and the Bush daughters are not obsucre people like the 9/11 victims, and therefore deserve enclyclopedia articles. --Jiang 21:57, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Adam. Muriel Victoria 16:55, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mcarling 18:01, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. I also agree with Adam BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:17, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. AG3 is, for better or worse, a well-known person. His activities (and the Bush daghters', and Chelsea's) are noteworthy. This is an encyclopedia of facts and events. Let's record them. Ensiform

drunk driving and drugs -- who cares?

Gore III was only a public figure as a child. The specifics of his adult behavors are inconsequential.

It seems ridiculous to remove the only thing he is known for lately, which has been his illegal behaviour. Maximus Rex 08:15, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Maybe before you simply revert - you should read what you're reverting back to. You made the article worse. In the time it took you to revert and post a talk comment here, you at least could have edited out the POV. Davodd 08:51, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

You're right I should have been more careful and checked the contributions of User:Mcarling. You could have made the NPOV changes instead of removing all of the information. Maximus Rex 08:55, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If someone who is notable enough to be on Misplaced Pages, i.e. a public figure, has been arrested, it is not POV to post it. If someone has been arrested it is simply part of their past.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Let's face it. If the Bush daughter had been caught doing the kind of crap Gore, Jr. has been doing then there would be three or four Misplaced Pages articles on it, a separate article for each incident and quotes from every newspaper, magazine, TV/radio show that could be found, plus any references to the incident on The Simpsons, Family Guy, or John Stewart's Daily Show. But of course there are not links to those shows because the liberal that write for those shows don't want to jump ugly on one of their boys.--Getaway 18:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

why is this article here again?

Looking over the old VFD debate above, I find the keep votes unconvincing. The other children of political figures mentioned (Chelsea Clinton, Bush's daughters) are public figures -- they've given interviews, made public statements, etc. Has Gore III ever even answered a reporter's question? While it makes sense to me that a politician's son or daughter would be a lot more likely to warrant an encyclopedia article, I don't think it's automatic. His father has talked about him in public, but it seems to me that that information is more appropriate on his father's article (where it already is, of course). --Allen 23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Look people, this is an encyclopedia, not a book. It is a resource to anyone who wants to know about anything. I have used it for serious research, gossip, and everything in between. Why anyone would want to remove an article on the children of a major U.S. political figure is beyond me. They (these offspring), granted, made no specific choice to enter the public eye. But enter it they did, whether or not through their own will. The alternative involves WK in censorship of one kind or another. I know which way I would vote. Get over it. 66.108.4.183 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Nash's Companion

Just like the Bush daughter's, enquiring minds want to know about the drunk son of the blowhard Gore.--Getaway 00:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No more AfDs, OK?

Alright, enough. Any nominations for AfD should be considered in bad faith. There have been three already, as well as an extremely bad faith 4th nomination created a couple days after a Keep vote. PT 17:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• OK, now we have had FIVE, the last two by new user/possible single use accounts. Cut it out. PT 00:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

I don't have any particular opinion on U.S. political issues, but it seems to me that if so many people are debating for and against deletion of an article, it may be a reasonable compromise to merge it, either to Al Gore or an article on the Gore family. Please tell me what you think of this. >Radiant< 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The children of famous people are not automatically worth an article on their own, and this is a prime case in point. The only reason for including this is that it (somewhat) reflects on the father, so why not put it where it is relevant. Those who think that is important information that might be deleted by partisans can watch one article as easily as two. In a few years, if AG3 does something worthy of WP:BIO, the redirect can be broken out into a separate article again. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. At one point, before the sources for the arrests were added, I supported my argument for deletion by noting that all the verified information in Al Gore III (i.e. the car accident) was already included in Al Gore. Personally, I don't think Gore III's arrests are more than a blip in his father's political career, but if they deserve mention anywhere, that would be it: notable insofar as they impacted his father's career. --Allen 23:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong disagreement. As this article has been subjected to a near-continuous stream of AfDs lately, to the point where the last one was closed down almost immediately as an abuse of process, I can only see any merger as a continuation of that abuse of process. After all, once the material from this article is merged into Al Gore III, those hellbent on deletion will be able to slowly whittle it down to nothing, which is exactly what they wanted from their nonstop AfDs. If this article is turned into a redirect before a reasonable period of time has lapsed from the close of the current deletion review on this matter (say, 30 days at an absolute minimum), I'll revert the article to its present state on the grounds that the redirect is an action meant to subvert legitimate process. After the 30 days are up, any attempt to turn it into a redirect without a full merge discussion from a fresh start will result in me restoring the article and immediately bringing it up for another full AfD. Process is not merely a hurdle to be overcome. --Aaron 02:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Of the three people who have expressed support for a merge, I am the only one who has ever participated in any of the deletion discussions. Of the two AfDs which violated your entirely reasonable 30-day standard, I participated in only one, and when I did I explained why I felt that re-nomination might be excepted from the customary waiting period. Therefore, I do not agree that the merge suggestion represents a continuation of any abuse of process. --Allen 06:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

From a process perspective, "merge" is an ordinary editing decision that is distinct from AFD. Some AFD's result in merges, but as noted in Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy, that is really a subspecies of "keep". The vast majority of merges have nothing to do with AFD, and can be done boldly by any editor. In this case, since there is obvious controversy, Radiant's recommendation is absolutely in process and should be treated as a good faith recommendation. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not accused Radiant of anything. My comments above pertain to the overall handling of this article across the board. The last legitimate AfD, which took place only two weeks ago, was closed as a unquestionable keep, and I intend to see that it's honored until and unless that concensus changes. If I end up having to restore Al Gore III, anyone will be free to put it up for an AfD all over again. By the way, you may be interested to know that the continuous abuse of process in bad faith attempts to delete this article has directly led some admins, including Radiant himself, to begin discussing the possibility of implementing a policy where articles under attack like this one would be permanently kept unless it was put up for, and survived, a DRV. --Aaron 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You stated that Radiant's merger proposal was a "Continuation of that abuse of process." I hope that someday you will explain to me how abuse of process is not an accusation. You are explicit that merging the information and converting this page into a redirect will somehow allow unspecified minions to remove the information, despite the undoubted vigilence of dozens of Gore-haters who watch every page associated with him. That seems less likely than someone's filling this page with AG3's trivial accomplishments to provide "balance." After all, one cannot have it both ways: AFD has overridden WP:BIO in this instance, and making the debate team seems hardly less trivial than the information already here.

Meanwhile, you do seem to be threatening a lame-edit-war of the following form. This information gets merged into a more appropriate place -- perhaps making a main article out of Al Gore Jr. Family, perhaps expanding the section on Al Gore III's accident that already exists. The page is then converted into a redirect. (How long, O Developers, must your people wait for section redirects?) You revert. Someone reverts you. You keep reverting and dare someone who is perfectly happy with the redirect to take it to AFD? This makes no sense to me. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong disagreement "Not worth an article"? There's no incremental monetary cost to have an additional article, and other people are contributing to it so it doesn't cost you time. The reason for including this is that this is supposed to be a collection of the entire human knowledge. What's 'not' worth it is to do work to merge this article now, and in 5 years do additional work to un-merge it. 66.95.123.6 15:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No one (in this discussion at least) proposes to excise the information from Misplaced Pages: that issue has been settled. The information is verifiable, certainly. The remaining question is where should this information reside to have the best encyclopedia? So, let's ask ourselves: Why do we have an article on Al Gore III and none on the thousands of others who have similar records? Answer: Because he is the son of someone famous. As far as I am concerned, all such information belongs in the article on the famous parent, and we can redirect. I see no difference between Al Gore III and Natalie Cantor Metzger in this respect. If he becomes notable on his own, the existing information will need to be completely reworked into the expanded article anyway. Odds are it will be trivia at that point. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentaly, Misplaced Pages by its own policies can never be a collection of the entire human knowledge, since much human knowledge is not verifiable, a great deal would represent original research and still other cannot be expressed in a neutral manner. There is also a great deal of trivial and ephemeral knowledge that is excluded by WP:NOT. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The worry was expressed at DRV that, if this is merged to Al Gore, Jr., it will be whittled away. I trust this is mere incoherence; if not, it betrays mistrust of the wiki process. If these anecdotes will be attacked there, they can as easily be stubified here. The only way I can make sense of the worry is that this article is defended by a few determined editors, and the bulk of editors who would diminish it don't know about it. This would be an admission that this article is not supported by consensus. Septentrionalis 03:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong disagreement with merge. I've been watching the continuous stream of AfD nominations on this article, and I agree that the rapid merge proposal, though it *might* be a good faith nomination, does have the appearance of being nothing more than a continuation of the campaign to circumvent process and get this article deleted. To be honest, it appears that there's an agenda here, possibly even with political motivations (getting rid of an "inconvenient" negative article). In my view, Al Gore III passes notability requirements, and the article is appropriate. I would, however, like to see a more positive picture of him, because the current one is negative, and implies that the subject is a criminal. A more pleasant picture (if one can be found or provided) might make the article less objectionable. --Elonka 18:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• • There is no rational basis to suspect Radiant or me of continuing an agenda when neither of us participated in the AFD. You might have noticed that Radiant proposed a merge compromise on another DRV (P-P-P-Powerbook) that was listed on the same day as this one, and that I was concerned in the same DRV. I have also merged other articles about the children of famous people (e.g. Natalie Cantor Metzger) so it is hardly fair to suggest that I have specific motives here.

• • You are correct that the article poses an NPOV problem, and this is one of the reasons that I think it should be merged. Much of the support for this article comes from editors with political motives, which is just as deplorable as wanting to delete it for political reasons. In effect, there is no non-political decision that we can make here. I do note, however, that isolating the material here tends to make it less prominent, not more.

• • I am sure that there are several positive things to be said about Al Gore III, but few (if any) are likely to be verifiable, nor is a list of his varsity letters likely to make gripping reading. Unlike the Bush daughters, he didn't make speeches or help in the campaign. This is one of the problems with overriding WP:BIO for relatives of famous people. There isn't much to say about them except the (nearly always embarrassing) events that got them briefly in the press. As a result a young person with a kid's problem looks like a criminal, which is probably a distorted view of the individual.

• • Now that I think about it, I think I will mention the issue (in the abstract, not mentioning the article unless pressed) on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living people. Maybe there is a good way to handle this that I am overlooking. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree There does seem to be an agenda here with the all the Afd's and now the merge coming so close. Let this article be! Whats wrong with it? As far as I can tell it survived three legit Afd's and now it looks like another way to get rid of it is being discussed. Shame on us!--JimBeaming 06:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For my part, and I think for others, the effect of the AfD was to draw the attention of otherwise neutral editors, who hadn't known of the existence of this article. (That is one of the ways that disputes are supposed to be handled. AfD is not the usual method, but I have seen it work before.) As for the suggestion of a conspiracy: Honi soit qui mal y pense. Regards, 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

• Redirect-Class biography pages