Deletion of Al Gore III (8th nomination)

Comment: Weak to non-existent claim to notability. Maybe someday he'll become Vice President of the United States, win a Nobel Prize, or even more, but now, not even close. If someone wants a |coatrack, they can go down to IKEA and buy one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: to Al Gore. Despite occasional references to him in speeches, etc., by his father, Al III has basically remained out of the public spotlight. I don't see how he qualifies under . He barely receives sufficient media coverage for the public to keep track of what his job is, which seems to be working for an obscure magazine
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. The refusal to accept the results of the seven previous AfDs only spits in the face of any meaningful interpretation. The refusal to accept previous results and to persist in pushing for deletion until the desired result is achieved is inherently disruptive and one of the clearest violations of  possible
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per . Seems like the only reason the article exists is to defame him. I'm not proud of what he has done, but if hes done nothing else, we can't have a one-topic biography
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATTACK)

Comment: though we might want to consider renaming to Al Gore III scandals and controversies to more closely reflect the content of the article. It currently meets  and ; I think it also meets  because it reflects what has been written in |reliable sources. It's not our job to say that the sources shouldn't be covering this person. If we were citing tabloids, that would be a problem, but we're citing reliable news sources. As an aside, I think that JERRY's comment that Gore III is "just some famous person's dog" is a much more serious violation of  than anything in the article itself could be
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:BLP)

Comment: I don't see any real assertion of independant notability here. Besides his parentage, it seems that the only things to say about him are a couple of injuries and minor offences, which is the stuff of tabloid newspapers, not encyclopedias.  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The nomination's principle claim is that this is a |coatrack.  I have no partisan interest in this matter so may be missing something.  What are the ''coats''?  Please provide an example
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: though I agree that the claim to notability presently in the lead of the article is weak and should be reworked.  This article hasn't changed substantially since the previous AfD so this AfD is unwarranted.  My remarks from previous AfDs: 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: and '''redirect''' to Al Gore. Al Gore III is not, despite what many people here seem to believe, notable in his own right, and notability is |not inherited. All we can say about him is that he once had a serious car accident; he's been mentioned in his father's speeches a few times; and he's had some relatively minor convictions relating to drugs possession. None of that is sufficient grounds for an article on this person;  demands that we balance the very marginal notability of the subject against their privacy and the damage an article can do, and in this case I believe that should clearly point us towards deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:BLP)

Comment: No independent notability. The sources don't allow writing anything substantial about him other that the list of accidents and troubles with the law that he has had. We should have a #TABLOID
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I came in here to say that... :P Delete per  and nom
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)