Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III and Noelle Bush
Some contributors to this AfD have, wittily yet seriously, characterized these articles as  infractions, the single incident being "an incident of birth". Many, in the spirit and almost to the letter of BLP1E, ''see them as marginal biographies on people with no independent notability that give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our |neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect is usually the better option. Cover the event, not the person.'' An overlapping argument: These articles are not proper (neutral, balanced) biographies. I don't believe this argument has been countered and would like to see someone explain why they are. Without a convincing refutation, and if the articles are kept, we may want to rename them to solve at least ''this'' problem. Examples: '''Al Gore III (health and law related incidents)''' or '''Noelle Bush (problems with the law)'''. If you think that sounds silly, I think you are right; this is probably because you instinctively feel such articles are simply unencyclopedic. But it's better to name them accurately than to grace them with titles Wikipedia reserves for biographies. Or in wikispeak: it's better to present them as a POV fork than as an article on the main POV, thus giving undue weight to some facts by not placing them in the context of these people's lives. That's right: we're missing the main biographical POV: a description of the lives and doings of the people. Let's stop pretending these articles are it. To wrap it up, this argument assumes that the current articles are neutral descriptions of news items about these people (as argued in their defense by many keep !voters); it says they are mistitled as ''neutral biographies
— [[User_talk:Avb|Avb]], 07:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BLP1E||WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)