Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (3rd nomination)

Barron Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Opening this discussion to coalesce discussions of redirecting this article back to its previous target. This is not an implicit support for redirection or deletion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. This is a private person who receives coverage only because various media cover his father extremely heavily. That doesn't make this person notable. Are any of these sources sigcov in RS, or are all RS mentions basically snippets in articles about his father or mother? Valereee (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Trump appears to meet WP:GNG's five points and WP:NBIO. The article cites two dozen references directly mentioning Trump's name in the headline, all from sources that are "generally reliable" at WP:RSP. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline. Trump's association with his father is not the only reason that this article exists. The question remains on whether or not Trump has a claim of significance. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He was mentioned as late as last month as a potential political candidate, that's more than enough sustained coverage from the time Trump was in office til now to suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think claims of significance are only for CSD A7. I think any coverage in reliable sources meets the CCS / A7 threshold. So this AFD should probably focus on notability, not CCS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources 16, 19, 33, 34, 35 are directly about him. He's the president's son, so will get coverage. GNG is easily met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• To answer Val's question, there are some sources specifically about him, but as far as I can tell they all fall into one of two categories: 1) very basic updates on his life, like that he entered the development program for an MLS team (note: not a GNG/NATHLETE pass on its own), or 2) discussion of how private his life has been kept and of pop-culture speculation about him. In a way, this is a weird case where something like Barron Trump in popular culture is conceivably notable (although it would present serious BLP issues), but the guy himself isn't. There's also the privacy angle to consider. As far as I can tell from the article, he's only voluntarily done press once in his life, an interview when he was 10. Since then, Melania has kept him away from the spotlight as much as possible. He is, despite his surname, much more a private citizen than a public one, and as a BLP matter, if there is any question about notability here, we err on the side of exclusion. So I agree, restore redirect. Any major details in the current article that isn't in Family of Donald Trump § Third marriage can be selectively merged. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect Just because they aged out of WP:MINOR does not award them an article when they age out, and for now they don't warrant anything regarding outside gossip blogs for an article. Nate • (chatter) 20:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#6, with absolutely no prejudice against renomination when this is off the main page.--Launchballer 20:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested at WP:ERRORS that either the hook be pulled or this be SK'd. If this is SK'd and re-AfD'd, I would suggest just copy-pasting the existing !votes into the next AfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now off the main page.--Launchballer 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect. An interesting case. We certainly have articles on people with much less press coverage, and he appears to tick many of the GNG boxes. However, he also ticks many of the WP:LOWPROFILE boxes, and it's pretty obvious that the press coverage he's received is derived from his father's notability. There is a privacy interest here. It looks like the article was rebuilt with this edit which gave as part of the rationale the announcement this morning that he will be an at-large delegate - but it looks like he declined that opportunity shortly after so not a lot has changed. What we have are a collection of gossipy bio-snippets - reliably sourced, but a poor foundation for notability, and really not that interesting as an encyclopedia article. I don't see any benefit to having this as a standalone article when all the relevant information can have a perfectly good home at Family_of_Donald_Trump#Third_marriage. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect Other than them no longer being a child, what makes this article notable as a standalone when this information better sits in the Family of DJT article? I certainly don't see it. Turini2 (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect This is an unusual case of inherited notability, but not a particularly strange one to me. Barron has received all the press he has received because of his father. No one would be commenting on him at all otherwise; we don't have many articles on random rich children of politicians, and we intrinsically seem to understand with the example of the Obamas that proximity to news coverage, and the fact that news orgs would talk about them, wasn't enough reason to create pages that, especially in this case, are a trainwreck and should never have gotten on the front page. There's no way to make a good article out of this, because there aren't good sources to start with. (Seriously, this article decided a story called "Barron Trump, 10, looked extremely sleepy during his father’s victory speech" was worth including?) It's essentially akin to a BLP1E subject. Also, speedy keeps because it makes Wikipedia look bad (due to our own stupidity) has and always will be a terrible reason to keep articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect per WP:NOPAGE and BLP concerns; also essentially an application of WP:NOTINHERITED. Would recommend ignoring WP:SK#6 due to clear emerging consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are plenty of sources that analyze the subject independent of (and budding independence from) his father, and due to Trump being married so often, redirecting to family is not as easy an option as it seems to have been with Obama's kids. Note also the 230k+ pageviews in the last 30 days. Abductive (reasoning) 20:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect fails WP:ANYBIO; the 'independent' sources are majoritively on adjacent issues. ——Serial Number 54129 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent" means "not under the control" of the subject. Also, a bio can't fail WP:ANYBIO. Abductive (reasoning) 21:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A biography can't fail a guideline regarding biographies? Thats an... interesting interpretation of otherwise plain English. Please read before you shovel; it's a pretty basic requirement per BLP. ——Serial Number 54129 21:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO is inclusive, it says topics that pass it are guaranteed to be notable. You seem to be allowing your biases to do your thinking. Abductive (reasoning) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:ANYBIO doesn't say that. The introduction to the criteria says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Schazjmd (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When clicked on, WP:ANYBIO leads to the list of three points, which are clearly purely inclusive. The quote about applies to that list and "Academics" and "Creative professionals". So, debatable. But i doubt many editors use the fact that a person has not "received a well-known and significant award" to argue for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 22:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "fails WP:BASIC" instead of "fails WP:ANYBIO"? The former talks about independence of sources and is a re-statement of WP:GNG but for the WP:NBIO page. The latter is an WP:SNG that lets very specific situations skip GNG and auto qualify, such as being a Medal of Honor recipient or being included in the Dictionary of National Biography. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect and protect it. No independent notability. Also I note that the hiding of the AfD notice is an inappropriate restraint of discussion. If this discussion is urgent enough for BLP reasons—as I believe it is—to override the usual prohibition on AfDing an article currently on the Main Page, then the blurb should be pulled from DYK, as is usually done when it's discovered that the grounds for AfDing an article featured in one of the Main Page blocks are urgent enough not to wait. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• However did it get on the Main Page for 20 hours? And once on the Main Page, no banner should have been there. Abductive (reasoning) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, looking at the first two noms, we have a contortionist closing argument that somehow makes a distinction between the "particularly high status ... Prince George or Princess Charlotte of Cambridge" and Barron Trump, and then a shameful example of vote counting(!) by the second closing "admin". Abductive (reasoning) 22:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect. An article that should never have been created. Barron Trump has no independent notability whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect and protect. Not protecting is how the article reached this state, the creator was advised against the article at least a couple times despite previous AFDs. Soni (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised after the article was created. Tamzin was the only one who raised such objections despite mentioning this article with other people and bringing it to GAN. One person's word is not going to force a redirect. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall another conversation much before Tamzins, but I might be mistaken here. Regardless, I don't agree with your last sentence because one person's word can undo a redirect apparently. And I do think that's a waste of community time if it requires an AFD or similar to restore it to redirect state each time. So, I'd still want protection.

No comment on GA/GAN and how you handle discussions with others, because I have opinions on them unrelated to this AFD. Articles with questionable notability can pass DYK, as this one proves (even if we decide to keep it) Soni (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: interesting. While there are BLP concerns, there are sources specifically about Barron, and IMO there is far too much info for a NOPAGE redirect. Cheers, Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 01:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is non-trivial coverage about him in multiple reliable sources and he is an adult. Bruxton (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect again. The coverage barely mentions him without the context of his father, even the sources linked above provide a weak claim. Mere speculation about his life doens't prove notability. Fails WP:GNG, and the sources provided seem to be WP:NINHERITED - even with being nominated as a delegate (before declining), he was only notable for that because of his parentage, and I don't think being a delegate is a claim to notability in itself.. Mdann52 (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is already an adult, and the article can be improved so it pays more attention to him as a person.--Janitoalevic (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Much of the BLP violations and fluff has already been removed, and there are sources specifically about Barron, meeting GNG. We shouldn't be judging the reason why sources gave significant coverage to Barron, the fact is that reliable and independent sources did so. WP:NOTINHERITED is for AfD arguments, not reasons for sources giving coverage. Skyshiftertalk 11:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect, and salt. First, I think recreating the page was technically against guidelines/policy; in theory, I think you're supposed to go to DRV before recreating an article deleted (twice!) by consensus. But that's probably not strictly observed all the time, so ok. Second, and more importantly, this is (a) a teenager whose (b) privacy is desired and who (c) has not yet done anything noteworthy aside from being born. WP:MINOR is not an obstacle to be waited out, it is a philosophy that doesn't dissolve on an 18th birthday. I think recreation should be prevented until there is a consensus somewhere that overrides previous AFD's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets our notability guide with SIGCOV. Lightburst (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets sigcov. The article does need to get edited. Perhaps send it to draft? --evrik ^(talk) 13:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect again and salt. Tabloid stuff. Articles for people who only get such attention because they are family of X, not because of what they have really done, should in general be redirected to X. Fram (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable is notable, we don't care why they are notable, only that they have significant coverage in reliable sources. Which this article does. Anyone citing WP:NINHERITED is not understanding that essay, and should carefully read the disclaimer at the top. It only applies to "arguments to avoid", and nobody is arguing Keep merely on the grounds of who he is. Everyone here is arguing keep because of the existence of sources. So please stop citing WP:NINHERITED unless you can point to a Keep vote that is applicable. WP:NINHERITED does not apply to the sources themselves, nor does it apply to the person themselves. What the heck does it apply to then, you may ask? Read the essay! -- GreenC 15:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect and salt — articles about Trump family with mere mentions of Barron (and what he is wearing) sare not significsnt coverage. Passing mention in an article about an eclipse is not significant coverage. This is not royalty, despite the name Barron.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]