Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeb Bush, Jr. (2nd 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 Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeb Bush, Jr.

Jeb Bush, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)This article is a walking BLP violation. Bush hasn't done anything notable during his life, but because he's related to a prominent politician, he received some small degree of media coverage when he was arrested on a pair of comparatively minor offenses. It's just not reasonable for us to have an article about every person who had sex with their girlfriend in high school, or drank alcohol from an open container in public, and since those are the only things about Bush that have attracted any public notice whatsoever, they create disproportionate weight within his article. As such, I think this should be deleted. Please note: it was nominated for deletion once before, and that discussion closed with no consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeb Bush, Jr.) -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• keep - you can't get much more notable than the Bush family. He's the next generation and is already finding his way into the news. Think of the Kennedy children. andy 14:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• After reading some of the comments below I've changed my mind - merge and redirect andy 06:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Just being in a famous family doesn't make you notable. If we used your reasoning, Andy, we'd have to have articles on all kids of presidents. And we don't. I'm not sure that we need an article on most of the people in the Bush family category, to be honest, including this one. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Good point. I hadn't looked at the category; I assumed that it'd just be Barbara and GHWB and people like that. I mean, I can't imagine why we'd have an article on someone like Timothy Bush. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Before somebody gets the idea to nominate Timothy Bush et al. for deletion, I would suggest merging them into the Bush family article. The following should probably be merged: Timothy Bush, Timothy Bush, Jr., Obadiah Newcomb Bush, James Smith Bush (merger will likely reduce the total amount of text, as some repeated info on relationships can be dropped). The next generation after that (Samuel P. Bush) seems notable enough, but some minor Bushes in later generations could probably be absorbed by the family article as well. Pharamond 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are some others, too, like Samuel Prescott Phillips Fay. The whole category needs a good going-over. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Actually, it's Wikipedia precedent that children of Presidents are automatically notable, if only because they generally receive an enormous amount of non-trivial third-party coverage. Amy Carter had something like 500 articles in major magazines written specifically about her. But this guy is a nephew of a President, not a child, and I don't think he's notable, so Merge the Bush nephews and nieces either into one group or into their parents' articles. --Charlene 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• MergeJeb Bush, Jr., Timothy Bush, Timothy Bush, Jr., Obadiah Newcomb Bush, and James Smith Bush to Bush family. A Smoking Gun copy of a police report which says that Jeb Bush, Jr., as a teenager, was caught having sex with a teenage girl in a car or that he got drunk does not satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO. For cripes sake, we routinely delete articles about murderers and rapists. The only reason to keep a standalone article about a nonnotable offspring's juvenile misadventures would be as a way of discrediting the politician dad or uncle. Per WP:N, notability is not inherited. For that reason and because Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, the non-notable ancestors of the Bush family do not qualify for standalone articles either. They go into far more detail than their own references justify. They lack multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage on them apart from their contribution to the gene pool. Merge and chop out the genealogy cruft and miscellaneous details of their rather average lives. Edison 17:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd oppose merging the non-living Bushes. The articles make a pretty good case for individual "notability," but let's leave that out of this discussion about Jeb Jr. and take it to the talk pages with the proper merge notices if we really want to merge them with Bush family. --JayHenry 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and/or Merge as noted by Edison -- notable, but not so much to be his own article. Bearian 18:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Jeb Bush unless much better sources are provided. My traffic violations are public record, the only reason Smoking Gun didn't publish them is that my dad's not famous and I wasn't having sex when I received the tickets. More important, I think there are real verifiability, living person and reliable source issues here. Without further sources, we don't really know what happened from the arrests. Were charges pressed? Were they dropped? Were the initial reports accurate? Smoking Gun isn't a very reliable source when it comes to follow-through reporting or correcting previous omissions. --JayHenry 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think children of presidents are one of the very few exceptions where people are notable just by being relatives of someone. The reason for this is that the public typically does find their doings notable; additional news stories could undoubtedly be found--if the NYT noticed this , lots of less staid papers would have. DGG 00:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Everyone at The New York Times just died a little death because you confused them with the New York Daily News. --JayHenry 01:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Just for the record, Jeb Bush, Jr. is not the son of a president. He's the son of the Governor of Florida, the nephew of one president, and the grandson of another. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Even if we assume that this is a 'private' individual per BLP, most of the information can be sourced to a secondary RS, and there is nothing in the writeup that sounds malicious - as the nom himself has pointed out. Don't see any automatic BLP issues. Hornplease 09:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I did a Nexis search and I can't find any reliable secondary sources about any of this information. The only secondary source is the one New York Daily News story. I think there certainly are WP:BLP issues, because this article is almost entirely about legal misconduct. But we don't have the sources to say how any of those situations were resolved. What if the police admitted that the arrest was a case of mistaken identity? We would have no idea. We don't have enough information to determine that this is complete and therefore accurate. I have no confidence that this entry is adequate; since it concerns legal misbehavior that's a big red flag for me. --JayHenry 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I could go either way here. If the US were a monarchy, he'd stay like numerous otherwise nn children, nephews, etc., of heads of state, because there's some reasonable chance he'd rule (he'd be 2nd or 3rd in line under Salic law, given that the current pres. only has daughters); but we're not. That being the case, what claim to fame does he have? What has he done that stands him out? Apparently not much. If he was Joe Blow with the same "accomplishments" he'd be out in an instant; so how much does "famous" breeding count? If he stays, we should be prepared to keep the nephews of the presidents of France, Venezuela, Russia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, etc. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above comments, this nowhere near a WP:BLP violation. Not even close. RFerreira 07:14, 5 May 2007 (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.