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. Mailer Diablo 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore III[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion a few years back, with a result of no consensus, but with a majority voting to delete or redirect to Al Gore. I think it deserves more discussion. I'm concerned that there is not enough verifiable information about Gore for a fair article on him to exist right now. He has been ticketed by police a few times, which made the news. But that's the only thing beyond his early childhood that's verifiable, because Gore has assiduously maintained his privacy. As far as I know, he has yet to answer a question from a reporter or make a public statement in his life. Keep-voters in the old VfD argued an analogy with the Bush daughters and Chelsea Clinton, but this seems like a false analogy, because these people have given high-profile interviews and speeches, a point that was not raised in the VfD. Allen 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, for WP:V problems due to lack of reliable sources. This comment is null however if someone should find a trove of info about Gore 3. hateless 20:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An entire chapter of the new book Inconvenient Truth is devoted to Albert Gore III, including details of his accident, medical diagnoses, and subsequent recovery. There are also multiple references to him and other photos from other points in his life throughout the book. --Elonka 22:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't read the whole book yet, but I read that section after you posted this. It's four pages long, and the book doesn't seem to have anything it calls chapters. Gore Jr. writes little, if anything, about Gore III as a person. Instead, Gore Jr. focuses on the facts of the accident and recovery and their impact on his own thinking about the importance of global climate change. As before, what you say is technically true, but subjectively I see things differently. --Allen 23:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Yunipo 21:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the content per nom. Recreate it only if he becomes famous or if his dad becomes President. For now, it can be redirected to Al Gore. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Amazingly well written nomination by the way. -- NORTH ^talk 23:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, thank you! --Allen 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having a famous dad doesn't make you notable. -- GWO
• KeepResource problem was fixed. How difficult was it to do a search on CNN? He being a politician’s son does not necessarily gives him status but his arrests gives him notoriety that people want to know about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.129.49 (talk • contribs) 22:07, July 27, 2006
• Keep. He's still notable enough to be in the press (for example, an L.A. Times article [1]). He's also being referred to in a current movie, his dad's Inconvenient Truth. Those, plus his own notoriety via the legal problems, are sufficient for me. --Elonka 00:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your opinion; and I can't deny that you have, technically, given an example of Gore being in the press. But I would like to point out that the author of that L.A. Times article spends two sentences in a long feature identifying Gore as an intern working for the subject of the article. He even says explicitly that Gore's identity is "incidental". --Allen 00:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, it's not about Gore, but I bring it up as an indication that he's famous enough to be mentioned in an article, even if he's doing nothing more than sitting on a couch.  ;) I think the mention in the documentary is more indicative of name recognition. Having said that though, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a merge, and I do agree that the nomination is thoughtful and well-written. But given a choice, my own vote would still be to keep. --Elonka 01:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a public figure. Or have a page foe every offspring of someone famous.Edison 01:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why not delete Chelsea Clinton or George P. Bush? If they have been in the news keep them on here, and Gore III has.--The great grape ape is straight out of the know 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clinton and Bush were in the news because they gave interviews and speeches; Gore was in the news because he got pulled over by police. Not saying you're wrong, but that's why I'd not delete the articles on Clinton or Bush. --Allen 23:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:BIO. Irrespective of the avolitional nature of his notoriety (toward which Allen properly and persuasively adduces the counterexamples of Chelsea Clinton and George P. Bush), that notability exists, if only in view of the sundry legal problems that have arisen (I assume arguendo that Allen didn't mean to suggest that the fact of the subject's ostensibly having undertaken to be a private person is at all relevant to whether we ought to have an article apropos of him; such suggestions have surely been refuted at, inter al., WP:NOT EVIL, the several Daniel Brandt AfDs, Wikipedia:Wikiethics). Were he a biographical subject only in view of his being related to a notable personnage, I'd likely think deletion (or redirection to Al Gore) appropriate (as I did, for example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suri Cruise), if only because of what we'd expect to be an attendant dearth of biographical information. Sad though I am that the youngest Gore has experienced legal troubles—after all, I volunteered a great deal on his father's 1996 VP and 2000 Pres campaigns, during the latter of which I had occasion to meet Gore—those troubles have made him, à la Michael Dellums (a good analogue, I think), notable. Joe 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguendo; there's a new word for me. Your assumption is correct in reality as well as arguendo; Gore's attempts to remain a private person are only relevant insofar as they are successful. The Michael Dellums comparison is interesting. My impulse is to argue that murderers make the news even if they aren't politicians' kids, while DUIs don't (not counting the police blotter). But I haven't thought about it enough to feel sure. --Allen 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In disagreement with Joe, I believe that the legal troubles have only made the news because of his relationship to his father, and thus that he is a "biographical subject only in view of his being related to a notable personnage". We do not believe in notability by relationship, so he is not therby notable. I see no evidence that he is notable at WP:BIO standards; I judge the legal stories trivial. I could support a smerge and redirect to Al Gore, noting that his accident's impact on the campaign is already in that article. GRBerry 13:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. It would be much better if there was a part of Al Gore's article dedicated to him. As stated earlier, unless Gore becomes president or Al Gore III becomes a polician/speaker/something else, this article isn't too significant. --Wafulz 15:03, 4 August 2006 (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.