Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (4th nomination)

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 speedy keep due to bad faith nom, WP:SNOW, and an AfD determining keep mere days ago. . - PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al Gore III

Strong Delete:This article has no bearing on information that would be found in an encyclopedia of any kind. This information is more likely to be found in a tabloid type newspaper.--MechCommander 08:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Previous AFD's:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (second nomination) (Closed No consensus 4 August 2006)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (3rd nomination) (Closed Keep 19 September 2006)

• Delete - his parents are famous, but notability is only transferable by heredity if you're a royal. It would surprise me not one bit if he becomes more significant in some field or another, but he hasn't yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 12:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep The last AFD closed three days ago! Fan-1967 13:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The consensus was good then, why the rush to try again without new arguments, I don't know. Mister.Manticore 14:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNon-notable person.Wikipedia is not here to smear living non-notable persons who are related to someone the editor doesn't like. OOH! He got a SPEEDING TICKET when he was 17!!!!! What could be more "encyclopedic" than that!!!Edison 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. I would also support a redirect to Al Gore, since everything noteable about Gore III is already mentioned in that article. —dustmite 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the reasons I gave when I made the second nomination (not enough verifiable information for an NPOV article; what info we have can be covered in Al Gore). That said, I'm not sure what to think about this latest nomination. Under normal circumstances, I would say it's way too soon after the last nomination. On the other hand, the last nomination went several days without being listed, and I suspect this might have skewed the results. It seems -- and this could be just my imagination -- that AfDers who vote early are more likely to vote delete, and those who vote later are more likely to vote keep, and the last nomination may have sort of missed the delete voters and picked up all the keep voters. So I'm adding my vote and hoping people take this nom seriously, but also acknowledging that people saying "what the heck?" have a point. --Allen 15:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Reposted to AFD too soon, and the arguments the nominator makes are arguments for cleanup, not for deletion. -- Plutortalkcontribs 16:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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.