Deletion of Al Gore III and Noelle Bush

Comment: per  and the proposed . These are, indeed, |pseudo-biographies - both exist principally to detail individual events in their subjects' lives, and their relationship to their more notable relatives. As a side point, I invite everyone commenting on this AfD to leave their comments at WT:HARM, as the discussion there is directly pertinent to this
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:PSEUDO||WP:PSEUDO)

Comment: Both to their parents' articles, while greatly condensing. Cut back to a paragraph. If their names were Al Jones III and Noelle Smith, the articles about people who had car accidents or drug issues would have been promptly deleted. They are coatracks to punish the parents for the sins of the offspring. If they seek public office, go on a joint nationwide Bonnie and Clyde crime spree, or become noted humanitarian aid workers, then the articles can be recreated. Fail 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: There has been a anvassing|canvassing for sympathetic opinion on the talk page of the proposed policy under WT:HARM#A_Relevant_Debate
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: to the articles on their respective fathers, or failing that, '''Redirect''' without merging. It's a violation of WP:BLP (specifically, the section dealing with "undue weight", ) to have an articles like these. The only dubious claim to "notability" for either of these people arises from an accident of birth, and since they are only notable within the context of their fathers, all relevant info can be included in their fathers' articles. If (after due deliberation) the editors of Jeb Bush and Al Gore do not feel that the information should not be there, then it shouldn't be anywhere. I find the example of people like Billy Carter and Roger Clinton unpersuasive, since those were presidential relatives, and neither of these people are in the immediate family of a president
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: not notable. Also, oatrack. Many people lose parts of their spleen or go to drug rehab, and do not merit articles on Wikipedia. The fact that these people received press coverage (which would be used to assert the notability of a normal joe) is because they are related to famous people, and it could be asserted that the amount of coverage received would itself be driven by a oatrack phenomenon in the press
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C||WP:C)

Comment: Troublesomely trouble-prone relatives of notable biography subjects are in themselves notable when they receive extensive press and enter the popular lexicon (''i.e.'', become the butt of late-night comedian jokes, are mentioned as clues on ''Jeopardy!'', ''etc.'').  There are two examples that I think no one would disagree are notable: Jimmy Carter brother Billy Carter|Billy and Bill Clinton brother Roger Clinton, Jr.|Roger.  Both have articles on Wikipedia, neither of which gives especial weight to biographical details apart from their eccentricities characterized at some time as being "embarrassing" to their presidential siblings.  Billy was not primarily notable as a beer spokesman; that notability was secondary to his press-getting antics, the repetitive use of his name as a gag on ''Saturday Night Live'' and ''Match Game'', and, ultimately, the Billygate scandal.  Roger is not primarily notable for his rock band and acting career; he is notable as the child-abused, substance-abusive half-brother of the president who was included in a set of controversial pardons made as the sun set on the Clinton administration.  Stating these notable facts in the articles on the subjects is not NNPOV, the articles for the presidential brothers could not be merged into the articles on their respective presidents because the material would be out of place there (in fact no details of either Roger or Billy—only mere mentions—are presently found in Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter), and the brothers are independently notable (''i.e.'', their names are sufficiently well known to be the punchlines of jokes and the answers to trivia questions).  The pertinent definition of Wikipedia:Coatrack|coatrack (which, strictly speaking, is an essay and should not in and of itself dictate this decision-making process) is that a coatrack article "fails to give a truthful impression of the subject", and to the best of the knowledge of history, the nominated articles and the abovementioned examples '''do give truthful impressions of their subjects'''.  Nor do any of them violate the spirit of BLP, which is intended to prevent rumor and libel from entering Wikipedia.  At no point it its edit history was Al Gore III Wikipedia:Coatrack|coatrack, as it never violated , it only ever presented reported facts in a neutral, unbiased way, they never took on a politicized slant or included judgmental language, and they were never given undue weight.  (It was actually the imputed perception of the facts as constituting bias '''that was the bias
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: It should not be seen as an argument with the strength of a guideline. But it can serve as explanation/examples for the related  issues, and certainly as an illustration of why an editor believes the articles need to be redirected/merged/deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)