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

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to

BLP1E may not apply on its face, however, that policy reflects that the community has supported the consideration of privacy concerns in deletion discussions. Here, there is a consensus to redirect the article for this reason. I have protected the redirect, consistent with our policy on repeatedly recreated articles. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Barron Trump

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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]

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
they|xe) 20:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Now off the main page.--Launchballer 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've worked my way through the DYK history, and it was proposed by ElijahPepe. Particulary odd, as this was something that happened at age 11. Barron was not kept on for any successive later age teams. A young child who failed promotion. Failure is not something usually promoted at DYK.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYK's main focus is getting as many things as thry can onto the main page. Everything else is secondary. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on this one. JoeK2033 (talk) 09:28, 9 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: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
]
  • 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]
    It was proposed by ElijahPepe, who faked Barron's membership at a professional soccer team by omitting pertinent information. Barron was never a professional player. He was 11. He played on the U-12 team in 2017. He was not promoted to the next age bracket. Failure is not something usually promoted at DYK.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:58, 5 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]
You are conflating individual achievement with independent, significant coverage. We don't care about achievement — if you wanna go OTHERSTUFF, I'd argue there are a whole bunch of articles about British royals who haven't done jack other than have the right pedigree. What matters is coverage. Ask yourself this: is a random user likely to have a question about Barron Trump and to come to WP for an answer? Of course they are. They don't want to be redirected to a 40 page biography of Donald Trump. Carrite (talk) 18:41, 7 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]
While I support redirection (see below), I want to point out a large error in your argument. DRV is not a requirement to recreate a page that was not salted, especially when the page was redirected eight years ago and there are presumably many additional references about him than there were at that time. Frank Anchor 13:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a "large" error; as I said, my more important argument was my second argument. I'll defer to your experience with recreating previously deleted pages, I'm sure you have more experience with page deletion norms than I do. It just seems odd. For most processes on WP, consensus can certainly change, but you generally need a new consensus to override it, not just one person who disagrees. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold recreations are acceptable as long as they are not duplicates of a prior version and notability can reasonably be argued to have changed;
WP:G4 would not apply in those cases. —Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Floquenbeam, I greatly respect you and I hope you don't see this as an attack on you - but do you have sources for Barron himself wanting privacy? I've seen many sources that talk about his mother keeping him private while his father was president - but I have yet to see a source that actually has in Barron's own words that he wants to be a private individual.
Our guidelines on figures who desire privacy may apply and would lead me to consider that Barron shouldn't be discussed in depth (in his own article or as a section in another article), but generally speaking that would only apply if he has intended to keep his own privacy - not simply that his mother kept him private as a minor. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course it isn't an attack, no worries. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect an actual public source that he wants privacy. He's an 18 year old kid, and they - even famous ones - are not in the habit of publicly announcing they want privacy. I doubt that such a source exists, but that doesn't weaken my assumption, barring any evidence to the contrary, that there's still an expectation of privacy when you've 18, and you've never done anything that would lead anyone to even assume the opposite. Even this delegate stuff is not something he sought out, it's something that others - in an attempt to suck up even more to his dad - tried to force upon him, and my understanding is he declined. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm torn - he did decline the invitation, but he didn't do it (publicly) for reasons of privacy/etc, but because of "prior commitments". To me, that would've been a perfect opportunity for him to express if he did not wish to be covered in the media this way. And that statement didn't even come from him, but from the office of Melania. You're right that we don't really have anything from him at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Outright deletion is a terrible option. The son of a president is, at the very least, a highly likely search term. Frank Anchor 13:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this AfD from DYK because I do some hook promoting there and this article was featured at DYK. I am rather surprised to see so many editors calling for a redirect when we have so much coverage of this person independent of his famous father. Making redirect arguments like teenage child of an extremely divisive living person is really not a good argument. This makes it seem like it is a
WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. Or he is a private person, that too is not an argument based in our guides. The reason this keeps getting recreated is because he is notable. I hope the closer considers our N guidelines and policies. and NEXIST. Looks like roughly 6k people view the article daily, so they come to us for facts and we say??? NOPAGE? I hope the closer considers that the arguments seem to be trying to invalidate our notability guide like a form of jury nullification? I am traveling but will watch this AfD because I find this extremely puzzling. Lightburst (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:BLP needs to followed here at all times, though that doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment — Iadmc♫talk  07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll add that he fails the
WP:ANYBIO test, too — Iadmc♫talk  07:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Restore redirect - actively
    WP:LPI, notability not inherited, etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Restore redirect, Trump's notability is due to his parents. He is not independently notable himself. I'm not sure I would support a salt in this case because it is still very possible that he could become notable in the future. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect, BLP always overrides weak notability claims and this is no exception. JoelleJay (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: While he does have some coverage through a handful of sources, he has no independent notability beyond merely being the son of a president. This is different from the first three Trump children, who are all independently notable in their own rights, so I do not find the argument conflating them convincing. Curbon7 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - I'll give the same response I gave at BLPN. So many BLP issues. This article should be speedily deleted, and the earth salted so it never pops up again. This is one of the reasons I decided to stay with Wikipedia so long ago. It's this sort of mob-mentality where people think it's ok to go after someone's child to get at them. This is why the left scares the bejesus out of me, because you never see these tactics coming from the right[disputed – discuss]. Personally, I have no love for Donald Trump. (I think he's a complete moron, and every time he speaks he removes all doubt. The only reason he's so popular with the right-wing nutjobs is because he's even more popular with the left-wing nutjobs; they are in love with their hatred of him. It's a case of "the enemy of my enemy...") But going after someone's family --and especially children-- is stepping way too far across the line. Definitely nuke it. Zaereth (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect per the arguments made above. The subject has barely been involved in press unrelated to his father, and, from what it seems, sources about him simply discuss his mystique. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect per all above. There is nothing of encyclopedic worth lost by people only reading the material present in Family of Donald Trump#Third marriage.
What extra stuff does this page have? He watched an eclipse from the balcony of his house? So did I. He brought his friends home once? So did I. He helps his boomer father open his computer? So do I. What is notable in all this? And I don't think we should be covering somewhat creepy Japanese stans making fanfics of him. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 07:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and salt cos we keep having this conversation again and again despite no material change in Barron's notability. This is the 3rd nomination. Enough is enough. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 05:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per the argument from QoH and Generalissima here, as well as the concerns raised by Yngvadottir in the Wikipediocracy thread about this AfD. jp×g🗯️ 08:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect per
    WP:BLP. Barron Trump's notability is strictly the result of being Donald Trump's son. Sure there will be sources specifically about a president's son, but that doesn't mean a standalone article is needed. No opinion on whether or not this should be salted.Frank Anchor 13:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Also, salt for a finite duration (I would suggest one year but at a minimum through the current election cycle) and ECP protect after that. Attempts to recreate this article (should the subject become more notable in his own right) during this time go through DRV or
WP:AFC. Frank Anchor 12:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Someone on WPO asked my about my opinion here. This is MILES over the GNG bar. Here are three, significant, independently published pieces of coverage of presumed reliability from last month alone. Honestly, only IDONTLIKEIT or a profound misunderstanding of GNG can lead anyone to anything other than a Keep perspective, I think...
• People magazine, May 20, 2024, "Barron Trump: Everything to Know About Donald Trump's Youngest Son."
https://people.com/all-about-barron-trump-donald-trump-son-7507615
• The Tennessean, May 18, 2024, "Barron Trump graduates: What will Donald Trump's youngest son do now?"
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2024/05/18/barron-trump-graduates-donald-melania-show-up-at-oxbridge-ceremony/73734727007/
• San Diego Union-Tribune, May 8, 2024, "Barron Trump, 18, to make political debut as Florida delegate to the Republican convention"
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/nation-world/story/2024-05-08/barron-trump-18-to-make-political-debut-as-florida-delegate-to-the-republican-convention
Thanks, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely he passes GNG. But as
WP:N says, This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Which is, I think, the right call here, given that so far, there isn’t really anything in reliable source coverage that can’t be covered in the parent article (no pun intended.) 28bytes (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you seriously arguing that some rando in a bar wondering how old Barron Trump is is gonna come to WP for an answer and getting the quick result they seek and being happy being redirected to a contentious 40-page article on his father? That's a boggling argument to trash-can GNG. GNG is an objective standard for notability not achievement. Carrite (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect could always be to the less contentious article about his mother, if that's your worry. Thanks, @28bytes:, for providing the actual policy rationale for what I deeply felt was right in this case. It is within policy to handle a notable topic by folding it into a parent article. For an 18 year old kid who hasn't really done anything, this seems the perfect solution. Slightly off topic, I feel much better about myself arguing for the "10 year old child with no other resources available" (or similar, I can't seem to find it now. was it a slightly different stereotype?) we used to see all the time. "Some rando in a bar" is less inspiring. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: The redirect is not to the contentious 40-page article Donald Trump, but rather to the far smaller and rather straightforward Family of Donald Trump#Third marriage. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 04:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, someone looking up his age on Google is going to find a Knowledge Graph served up with stuff from Wikidata. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 04:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per
WP:GNG or not. Information about this kid is better placed in an article about his family. Levivich (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
...and salt. DRV should be required before it's split off again. Levivich (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per
WP:NOPAGE, Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page, and seems obvious that this is one of those cases. --JBL (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nonsense. In the first place, having come of legal age less than three months ago, the closest thing he's done to an adult thing is choose a college, and one can only guess the degree to which it was a decision independent of his parents. Second, it's not uncommon for children of the famous to lack their own articles if they don't have independent notability. Third, I see no evidence of any "independent reporting", which is hardly surprising for someone whose only "independent" accomplishment is to graduate high school less than a month ago. There is no reporting on him which isn't a direct function of him being "son of". And for the umpteenth time, your argument reeks of "now he's fair game", which is the antithesis of BLP sensitivity. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some sort of policy I don't know about, why have multiple people made reference to becoming an adult? Super weird to see this in a
WP:BLP discussion, we don't have 18th birthday countdowns before starting an article like a bunch of shock jocks ogling a teen star. hinnk (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Restore Redirect Subject is not notable on their own merits. We should be not deviate from policy on this matter, and we need stronger BLP standards. Abzeronow (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but at a minimum, don't salt. Barron Trump has been nominated for being a delegate to a major political party's convention, and whether or not he chooses to pursue politics at all does not change the fact there is enough reporting about him as a person to merit GNG passing. I notice the arguments a la
    WP:NOPAGE that are being made, however, none of them actually seem to address the reasons given to not provide a standalone page. Donald Trump's life/article(s) do give context, yes, but that's not what NOPAGE says - NOPAGE specifically addresses when a topic cannot be addressed on its own without the context. The exact phrase used is needed context - and there is no "needed" context for Barron's notability. The relevant context can be addressed through the typical editorial process through wikilinks to articles providing such context, and/or hatnotes to articles about Donald Trump or the political processes involved. However, that context is not needed for his notability as a person. It is important to remember that as an encyclopedia we do not determine what is notable on our own - we follow what reliable sources have and are likely to consider independently notable. And the current breadth of independent coverage of Barron is such that the reliable sources are deeming him independently notable - be it because they think he is not his father, or because he is notable on his own. As such, I vehemently oppose salting the article if it is redirected, because there is no reason it should be prevented from coming to exist naturally when reliable sources continue to report on him independently. As a final note in this comment, I'll refer to User:Carrite and others who have succinctly summarized the large amount of sources that report on Barron exclusively and not on his father's politics as reason for this subject's independent notability - and nobody has refuted those claims, even with the vast amount of !votes to redirect. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barron_Trump_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1228538424"