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]
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]
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)
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)
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)