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

Barron Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

(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 and salt. 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.--Laun chba ller 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.--Laun chba ller 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]

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 (and SALT per others) fails WP:NOPAGE; 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]
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]

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]

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]

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) are not significant 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]
Keep per GreenC's comments. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and salt — So little of this article is focused on Barron. Much is about the relationship of Donald and Melania to their kid—interesting, sure! But as it currently stands, this feels like a BLP violation and a half for someone who shows no signs of being a public figure in their own right. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and salt it. Per all the above arguments in favor of this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced with ample coverage. Has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is the requirement laid out in WP:GNG. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 02:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting GNG does not mean the article cannot be merged to another. GNG is a guideline, and guidelines are to be treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply, subject to policy. And a policy - WP:N - states, in its lead, that [Meeting GNG]... is not a guarantee that a topic will 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 exactly what is being proposed here. Most notable material about Barron is already included in Family of Donald Trump#Third marriage. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 05:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per David Fuchs, Mdann52, and Generalissima (among others), without prejudice to a standalone article in the future when and if his status changes from private family member to public figure. 28bytes (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and salt - RS clearly treat him as notable only because of his father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riposte97 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as a first choice and Redirect and salt as a distant second choice. Otherwise unnotable teenage child of an extremely divisive living person. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:04, 6 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]

Restore redirect and salt – clearly only notable through association with his father unlike Ivana Trump and Ivanka Trump— Iadmc ♫^talk 06:06, 6 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]

@Lightburst: I've read the article again and still can't see what's notable about Barron Trump. He has famous parents for sure but that doesn't establish personal notabilty. People are interested in him but people are interested in all sorts of people which does not make them notable in themselves. Barron Trump in popular culture is an interesting idea, though, as it addresses the problem of popularity vs notability nicely. Just what makes Barron notable? Gossip? WP:NOTGOSSIP. His possible future? WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I'll add that 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:NOPAGE and, to a lesser extent, 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]

Keep - A 100% notable biographical topic. Let's try to be an encyclopedia providing information for those that seek it rather than knowledge gatekeepers. That the article is terrible is irrelevant. Passes GNG. Easily. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 7 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:NOPAGE and the other redirect arguments above. Doesn't matter if he passes 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]

redirect per WP:BLP, WP:NOTINHERITED, and because of the quality of the material. I cannot, apparently, say this enough: Sourcing alone is not notability. And reading through the article, the material is stuff which for the most part could be written about any recent high school grad. If he weren't the former president's son, nobody would know. He has no more history than I do, or than had the acquaintance of mine who happens to be Jay Gould's great*granddaughter. The only interest in him derives from his father. And besides that, it's just simple BLP courtesy not to make a big deal out of him washing out of youth sports (as most of us did), even if he had already gone off to college. As far as looking up his age, I'm thinking that (a) "none of your business" is a valid response, and (b) it's entirely appropriate that googling "how old is barron trump -wikipedia" produces as its first result the answer, from the New York Post. In the end, this fails the "why do we care?" test in a big way, since "because we're nosy about famous people's kids" is (a) the actual answer, (b) not satisfying GNG, and (c) baldly in contravention of BLP's letter and spirit. Mangoe (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and salt Barron Trump is absolutely notable. However, as JayBeeEll pointed out, notability "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page", and I'm not seeing a strong case to do so from those supporting. It should've been a huge red flag that the only topics that could be covered were "Early life and education", "Public image and privacy", and "Personal life". hinnk (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and salt Hasn't done anything with his life yet except look tall. We can have this discussion again if he goes into politics. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on SALT While one may consider this article TOO SOON, just as Trump Père himself became notable there is a fairly good chance that Barron will do so also. Nothing should prevent the creation of an article in the future if he does things that are noteworthy. A time-limited block would make sense, but not a permanent salt. Lamona (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Salting doesn't mean the article can never be created. It just means the article needs consensus, likely at WP:DRV, before it can be created again. The first AFD had a dozen participants, 2nd AFD had over 60, and now this AFD is at over 50 participants. Yet creating the current version just needed one editor to decide to do so.

Rather than the article inevitably getting created again after whatever time period we choose expires, I'd personally prefer requiring consensus. Otherwise the article will probably come back to AFD 4, for even more editors to !vote on a pseudo-RFC AFD Soni (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The reason to require consensus before it can be recreated is because it's a BLP so it's important we not screw this up. Levivich (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and liberally pour out the Morton's. The sparse content that's about him rarely is even about him other than the information that he exists. The coverage of him is so shallow that to allow this article to remain is the equivalent of saying, "Yes, notability is inherited." As for the comment about helping out the rando in the bar find information about Trump, since I don't believe Barron *is* notable, I care no more about assisting their search for information on him any more than if they wanted to know biographical information about the bartender with the Blue Öyster Cult that poured their beer 15 minutes prior. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and salt, per 28bytes, Floquenbeam, and Levivich among others. DFlhb (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect not a public figure, the content can be handled at the family article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and salt: Barron Trump is not inherently notable (WP:NOTINHERITED) and I feel this article probably goes a bit beyond the reasonable expectations of privacy. Xii Xii 02:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirect is appropriate for minor children of presidents and children of less-prominent politicians. It is inappropriate for an adult child of an ex-president and presidential nominee who is now the topic of independent reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordgette (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 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]