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 delete and redirect. I felt they presented a far stronger argument, and when I applied appropriate weight to arguments about "inherent notability", "usefulness" and "already been nominated and kept" I feel there exists a consensus to delete. If any user wishes to contest this decision for whatever reason, please use deletion review. Daniel 12:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb Bush, Jr.[edit]

Jeb Bush, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete Not indepdently notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN. While there are references to him on the smoking gun, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a tabloid. It is likely only to attract violations to WP:BLP and possible legal issues. Per WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." Strothra (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: I fail to see how he is notable. Notable relatives, yes. I don't find his petty criminal record, his volunteer work, nor his political endorsements, a sufficient reason to call him notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being related to an elected official and being arrested do not satisfy WP:BIO. 04:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs)
• Weak Keep As the article currently stands, there are reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. As happens far too often, WP:BLP is abused to mean any article about any living person that has anything that might be considered negative, which is simply not the case. Apparently, the media has found Jeb Jr. sufficiently newsworthy to merit coverage over an extended period of time on a variety of subjects, which addresses the potential issues from the also-irrelevant WP:NOT#NEWS. I will consider amending my vote as additional sources are added. Alansohn (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE: This article is primarily being used in a defamatory manner and is generally biased. I can pull up the address of my local hardware store on-line and in the Yellow Pages but that still doesn't make it notable. A tabloid or newspaper story does not make him notable either, nor does relationship to his father. This article somewhat smacks of a semi-political agenda in order to add defamation to his family's character. I got drunk, had sex and got caught and my father was a politician but that still isn't good enough to put it on Wiki.--Iconoclast Horizon 05:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment-"He had sex, got drunk, went to college, and now works for a living"; that is not notable by itself.---Iconoclast Horizon 07:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is the Third AfD attempt for this page and it follows an incorrect attempt to PROD it after the first two attempts failed. Moheroy (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - See WP:NOTAGAIN.--WaltCip (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Also, just because this is the third attempt and the other two failed is not a valid argument.---Iconoclast Horizon 07:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete consensus can change, and I believe in this case it should. The coverage of him is trivial at best. It ammounts to two blips on a police blotter. At best, this should be merged into his father's article. There isn't enough here to build an article around. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The issue for me is whether some readers would come to Wikipedia to get information on this subject. It's certainly true that, if he weren't related to a President and a Governor, the answer would be No. Back here in the real world, though, he is related to them, so people will be interested. I quote with approval this comment from the first AfD (with the "Keep" unbolded so as to not confuse the closing admin):

Keep as although the incidents are in one snese merely embarrassing they received international press[1][2][3][4]; some of the coverage draws inferences between those episodes and more notable relatives[5]; and some coverage questions his father's role in the lack of formal charges.[6]. --Dhartung | Talk 22:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, while a renewed attempt at deletion is permitted, a third attempt in less than a year seems excessive to me. At a minimum, the nominator in such a situation should notify those who participated in the previous discussions. JamesMLane t c 09:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This is nothing more than an libelous article masquerading as a Bio, which is against wiki policy. It was also listed under category US Politics, which it is not. There is obvious bias with primary contributor(s) of this article. One day he may do something political or otherwise but on his merits at this point this article is simply an attempt to continue muckraking the Bush Family. I don't care for George W. but I still don't think this article about his brother's youngest son is meritable. ---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your charge that the article is "libelous" would deserve consideration if you were able to specify one single solitary inaccuracy in it. Your charge of bias by the primary contributor(s) violates WP:AGF and is irrelevant besides; if a biased contributor makes an edit that complies with WP:NPOV, is properly sourced, etc., then the edit stands, regardless of the editor's motive. JamesMLane t c 09:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Unless he does something else, (write a book, create a scandal, go into state or national politics, (or starts a rock band, ha), etc), this guy is destined to be a genealogical footnote and that is not notable.---Iconoclast Horizon 02:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)

• Delete - non-notable Bushcruft. Wikipedia isn't for documenting teenage sexual indiscretions of the nephews of the famous.--Doc^g 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. Nephew to the President and son of one of the most prominent governors, heir to political dynasty (notability may not be inherited but political dynasties are and he's clearly received some of his family's fame), significant independent coverage in major news outlets of his political endorsements and relationship to 2008 presidential race (CBS, Wall Street Journal, Slate)[7] Whatever his earlier claims to notability and whatever happened in the prior 2 decisions to keep, as of now his notability is his political connections and is clearly sourced and satisfies WP:BIO on that.Wikidemo (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Two news stories don't make an article. The article focuses on two gossipy incidents - there doesn't seem to be enough material to write a balanced biography - creating WP:BLP problems. WjBscribe 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete so he's the youngest son of a US Governor, that doesn't make him notable. The two minor brushes with the law also don't make him notable. RMHED (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLP- reads as quite a smear in its current form, as there isn't much to say about him apart from his arrests. Plus notability is not inherited.Merkinsmum (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apart from the arrests could he be considered notable? And if that's the sole reason for his notability doesn't that violate WP:BLP1E?? Xymmax (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, for the incident that occurred at age 16, he was not even arrested...Xymmax (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the links provided by Dhartung in the comment I quoted above, you'll see that one aspect of notability is the published charge that the non-arrest was the result of his father's intervention. I personally have never had sex in a parking lot so I don't know how often people caught in flagrante are charged with public lewdness or the like, but it doesn't seem implausible. JamesMLane t c 09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Son of a president, yes. Son of a governor, no. Nephew of a president, still no. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sorry folks, he's a Bush, he's notable. Curious Blue (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's known, but that's hardly the point. The question is, can we write a fair and balanced biography on this person? Is sex in a car encyclopedic? If the answer to that is no, but he's "notable" just as existing, then we can "note" his existence on his father's article. Oh wait....we do. This is why notability is a crap deletion/inclusion criterion.--Doc^g 00:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Curious Blue, which part of WP:NOTE or WP:BIO say that being a Bush is notable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passed two discussions already, can be factually verified and is a member of one of the most noteworthy political families in American history. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Consensus can change. There is nothing wrong with nominating this again. Using the past discussions as a keep reason (or part of a keep reason) isn't a real reason. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Please can we skip all the arguments about the noteworthiness of being a son or nephew of someone, or of drunkenness or public sex? That's not how things are supposed to work here: we don't make our own assessments of notability. As a tertiary source, wikipedia records subjects which have already received substantial coverage elsewhere, and there is no evidence that this particular person has received that substantial coverage. That's all there is to it: either the coverage is there or it isn't. It wouldn't matter if he was a close relative of every head of are in the planet and had orgies in every city in the world, unless there was substantial coverage of that in multiple reliable sources … and there isn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 25 November 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.