Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (8th nomination)
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
— User:Robert, 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)