Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (2nd 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 Family of Donald Trump#Barron Trump. Per the autocount, we have 24 keep, 24 redirect, 14 merge and 3 delete. This gives us, numerically, a majority but not yet consensus to omit the article.

Looking at the arguments made, the basic argument for not to have an article is the guideline WP:INVALIDBIO which covers our practice that notability is not inherited: a person must be the subject of substantial coverage in their own right to merit an article. To counter that argument, the "keep" side would have to point to such coverage in reliable sources. However, with very few exceptions, the "keep" opinions do not do that; instead, most of them merely assert (rather than attempt to demonstrate) notability, with statements such as "very notable", "he is intrinsically notable", "Hes [sic] member of Trump family" or "is more notable than the many minor children of the British royal family". In the light of the previously mentioned guideline, such assertions must be given less weight when assessing consensus.

Accordingly, I conclude that after weighing the strength of the arguments made in the light of our rules and practices, we have consensus to redirect the page to the family article, and to leave it up to editors' subsequent consensus about whether and which content to merge from the history.  Sandstein  10:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barron Trump

AfDs for this article:
Barron Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTINHERITED, I don't think he is notable. His much older half-siblings are independently notable for their various public roles and activities, unlike him, not just for being the children of their father. Tataral (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that what WP:NOTINHERITED actually states is: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG."E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice this article has already been deleted once previously following a debate here, with the rationale: "The standard on Wikipedia is that minor children of notable people do not merit an article unless they meet notability guidelines and are independently notable outside of their parents." --Tataral (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You noticed, did you? Then what's your excuse for not noticing that that discussion was before his father was even thought to have a good shot at the nomination? Now he's President-elect. That discussion specifically noted Prince George of Cambridge was a recognized exception to the usual notability rule. Anyway this is discussion is not for petty rules-lawyering, obviously this is an article that people will search for millions of times, that will accumulate dozens if not hundreds of references, it is clearly notable and any claim that it isn't is frivolous.Enon (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what his father has been elected to. It is his father who was elected, not him, and notability is not inherited. When Malia and Sasha Obama didn't get stand-alone articles during the last 8 years, a virtually unknown child whose father isn't even yet president shouldn't either. --Tataral (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closing admin noted in the rationale for deleting it the last time that: "Barron Trump does not satisfy this criteria as he has only received coverage for being Trump's son and his appearances on various media was in a "son of" capacity", so those TV appearances were not considered sufficient. --Tataral (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Malia and Sasha can obviously support articles, of their own; they are unusual only for not having them yet (see Amy Carter and my impression is that every 20th century Presidential child until Malia & Sasha has had an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"every 20th century Presidential child until Malia & Sasha has had an article". @E.M.Gregory: Hold your horses. They may have articles as adults, but not as children. Give this a minute or two of thought. How long has Wikipedia been in existence to actually have such articles, and how many minor first family children have existed during that time? The Bush daughters were adults by the time Wikipedia began. Wikipedia didn't exist when Amy Carter was a child. Chelsea Clinton's article wasn't created until she was an adult. Neither Malia, Sasha, nor Barron are notable enough for their own articles. Sundayclose (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump, as User:1937 has now done a fine job of merging there. Wikishovel (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please… The US are not a monarchy, they actually fought an independence war to stop pledging alliance to kings and their infants! — JFG talk 10:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prince George is royal and is therefore covered by the royalty exception to NOTINHERITED; moreover, George is heir to the throne of the United Kingdom. Is Barron Trump heir to any throne? --Tataral (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see: Family of Barack Obama#Malia and Sasha Obama, though that's a bit too detailed in my opinion. There's no need to include, for example, a list of his Barron Trump's television appearances. It was part of the election campaign, and the campaign's over now. Wikishovel (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Family of Donald Trump is the proper course. The kid's 10 years old and like most 10-year-olds, has done nothing to merit his own Wikipedia page. His paragraph on the Family page can list anything appropriate. Raider Duck (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge To article on family of Doanld Trump. While at some point there may be enough grounds to justify having a seperate article on Barron Trump, he is older than Natasha Obama was when he father was elected, but the same age (10) as Malia was when Obama was elected. However at this time there is not enough coverage of him to justify a stand alone article. For what it is worth we still may get a stand alone article on Malia, since her father's term does not end for another 2 and a half months, I doubt we will, but we might. There were periods of a few minutes when there were free-standing articles on Malia Obama, including October 23, 2009 when the article was created and redirected about 6 times. Barron Trump is a 10-ywear-old who had done nothing of note, and the extensive media gazing does not create any substantial coverage. Some of the precedents are a bit tricky. Obama's two daughters are less likely to have a clearly projected single identity, but the fact it is not a joint aritcle on his children but a general article on the family suggests that the precedent is to redirect. Jenna Bush (Hager) did not get her own, stand-alone article until 2006 (when she was 24). Looking back on those articles, I actually think they were created too soon. Clearly there is no justification for creating a stand-alone article on a minor who has done nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nature of the sources is extremely poor. We do not even generally have Barron Trump doing or saying anything. We have media reporters thinking they see him do something (yawn) and then try to read something into that supposed action. Or we have a quote of his father mentioning something about him or his mother. No articles come close to substnatial coverage guidelines. I think that Jenna Bush did not have a stand alone article until she was 24, and Malia Obama is 18 and does not yet have a stand alone article are important points to note. I also find it odd that someone say "We have articles on the children of every 20th-century president until Obama", well Obama is not 20th century (nor is George W. Bush). The most interesting thing about Barron Trump is that his father was 60-years-old when he was born, and although that is out of the norm, it is not grounds for a stand-alone article.21:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Family of Donald Trump per all other "redirect" comments above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment contra several editors, sufficient, in-depth, major media profiles of this 10-year-old are already on the page to keep this article. The sole argument for deletion appears to be that the Obama children do not have articles. However, it appears that EVERY presidential child except the Obama girls does haven't an article (at least, I couldn't find one who did not, perhaps I missed someone). They are a subject of enduring interest, even those (Tiffany Trump, Amy Carter, Barbara Bush (born 1981), Tricia Nixon) of no independent accomplishment. Far from being "normative" the treatment of the Obama children is exceptional. They will inevitably have articles because American interest in first children is intense and ongoing. Barron may as well have one now, as per the stipulaiton in WP:INHERIT that I cite at top of this page, and the fact that coverage of him already passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: Have you actually read the other comments on this page? The "sole argument" for deletion (or redirect) is not that the Obama girls don't have articles. And did you bother to read others' comments about other presidential children having articles? Let me try to simplify this. No presidential child has had an article as a child. All have been as adults. Most of them couldn't have had an article as children because Wikipedia didn't exist when they were children. If you disagree please let us know who they are. As for anyone "inevitably" having an article, where did you get your crystal ball? Wikipedia does not base the content of current articles on speculation about future articles. Sundayclose (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you any idea of the amount of publicity White House kids draw? Adult children of Presidents are of less interest to the media, but at least form the time Teddy's kids and their ponies and puppies were intensely covered in the illustrated weeklies of their era, to John-John Kennedy, Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton, minor children in the White House have been covered as extensively and intensively as the First family permits. The younger they are, the more the press covers them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to repeat this? No first children have had Wikipedia articles as children. I asked you to give us examples if you disagree. And again you don't know whether Barron's notability apart from his family will increase. It gets very annoying when someone makes the same argument again and again. You've made your point. There's no reason to continue repeating it. Sundayclose (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your objection is silly. Prince George of Cambridge gets his own page, Barron is more notable than Prince George, Barron's father is more notable than Prince George's father, WP does not operate under some imagined unchangeable, uncorrectable rule of not having a page that people will obviously search for millions of times just because some officious little busybodies made the wrong call eight years ago.Enon (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Enon: Once again, have you actually read the other comments on this page? Prince George is the one and only exception to WP:INHERITED: "except for an heir to a throne". And please don't refer to any editor's opinion as silly. You're out of line. Sundayclose (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Prince George of Cambridge is not the "only" exception to this rule, as I stated above. Many British royal children have had their own page since birth. Maybe the decision not to have separate pages for the Obama children was a mistake? It can be rectified anytime. I think people should make an effort not to allow partisanship to affect this discussion. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing and I find many of the partisan comments on this page rude and non-constructive and surely they breach rules or policies. EvidenceFairy (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fails WP:ANYBIO.
  2. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, A)this child has no notable ceremonial/public position (unlike his mother - Melania Trump - who will be the First Lady of the United States when her husband becomes President), so there should not be a separate article on him. and B) "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Newborn babies are not notable except for an heir to a throne or similar." Barron Trump is only 10 years old, he's done nothing newsworthy other than being born, he's still in elementary or grade school.
  3. For the merge and redirect WP:INVALIDBIO applies - "However, person A may be included in the related article on B." and "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics..."
Shearonink (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, but I do strongly suspect that this child will be in the spotlight very soon, and have extensive media coverage. (Unfortunately) I recognize WP:NOTINHERITED and the fact that he is not notable now, but I do think the article will have to be re-created eventually. But that's all speculative, so I weigh in with a Weak delete. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Weak delete, there is literally no reason to keep the page as a standalone page. At best redirect, at worst, delete. GoldenSHK (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's no reason to delete when this article has potential to be recreated in the future, providing it is rd/merged. MB298 (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect:- There is possibility that one day he will became notable so it should not be deleted completely. But now there is no reason to keep it as he has done nothing notable till now by his own. So I suggest to redirect this page to a related article. Ominictionary (talk)
  • Speedy keep The old deletion was when his father hadn't even got the nomination. In that discussion, it was noted that an infant British prince is an exception to the usual rule for notability. Prince George of Cambridge Barron is the President-elect's son who is going to be living in the White House less than 70 days from now. President of the USA is a much bigger deal than 2nd in line to be British ceremonial head of state (Prince William). He'll be 15 shortly after his fathers first term, he'll be in college by the end of a possible second term. He's going to be in the news a great deal. People are going to search for this article literally millions of times. That his father is unpopular among many Wikipedians of the sort who make it their hobby to pile on in AfD discussions should not be a factor. The deletion proposal is totally frivolous, an obvious troll. Treating it seriously would make Wikipedia look very petty. Enon (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks more like a speedy merge to me. When not even the much more well known and older children of President Obama (who are actually the children of a President, unlike him) have their own articles, why should a completely unknown (in the sense that we don't really know anything about him, he has not done a single independent thing in his life, he has just been mentioned a few times as the son of his father) 10-year old son of a guy who is said to just have won an election (despite receiving fewer votes than his opponent) have an article? The comparison with the heir to the throne of the United Kingdom is utterly ridiculous, luckily Barron is not going to inherit any throne, as the US is not a monarchy. Also, Presidents of the US bow to the monarch of the UK, not the other way round, so it's certainly not a "much bigger deal" to have four years in that office than 64 years and counting as Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and head of the Commonwealth and queen of 12 other countries in the past as well. --Tataral (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you read the US Constitution you will find that the popular vote does not decide the Presidency, the Electoral College does, and as such, Mr Trump is legally the President-elect whether you approve or not. This has happened 4 times in US history. No American is required to "bow" to anyone, and my understanding is that QEII does not expect them to do so. If a POTUS does, it is their choice. Her length of service is irrelevant. The two countries have very different systems, laws and conventions. Decisions about a Wikipedia page should not be based on partisan bias, feelings, or inaccurate information such as the two points I just mentioned. IMO the Obama children should each have their own page. --EvidenceFairy (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Enon: Please remember to WP:Assume good faith when other editors disagree with you in an AFD. Assuming that the arguments put forward above are all smokescreens for political opposition makes about as much sense as assuming that your case for not merging is also made for political reasons. Wikishovel (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Enon: For starters, you say George is 2nd in line to British throne, behind only William? Try 3rd. Also, if he becomes notable when he's 15 or 18 or whenever, then, and ONLY THEN, may he have his own article. pbp 22:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Mk4711 (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per media coverage. great sourcing. the person passes WP:GNG. Being the President of the USA son is also notable. Just like Chelsea Clinton and other daughters and sons of Presidents they will always be in the public eye. Such as the fact that Wikipedia has articles about the Presidential animals (dogs etc) the children of the President gets noted and often heavily publicized in the media. BabbaQ (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- very notable. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I decided to take a look at the references in thepresent version of the article and what they are backing.
Ref #1 - his place of residence.
Ref #2 - how he prefers his bedding, he has a whole floor of Trump Towers to himself, he moisturizes with his mother's brand of caviar-moisturizer
Ref #3 - again, he moisturizes with his mother's caviar-moisturizer, he speaks Slovenian, he has fans in Japan
Ref #4 - His parents (well, actually, Mrs. Trump is the one who said it, not President-Elect Trump) want to keep him out of the spotlight
Ref #5 - He attended 2 of his father's speeches.
Ref #6 - His father says Barron is good with computers.
Ref #7 - He appeared tired during his father's acceptance speech at the Republican Convention.
Ref #8 - He was at his father's side at 3am during the election results.
Ref #9 & #10 - "Which DC school will Barron attend?" & Barron will be first boy to live in the White House since JFK Jr in 1963.
Ref #11 - According to IMDb (which can be a somewhat problematic source) and only addresses Barron's appearances on 2 television shows*,
Barron appeared on "The Apprentice" as himself in 2007 (when he was about 1),
in 2008 (when he was about 2),
in 2010 (when he was about 3),
in 2011 (when he was about 5)
and he appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show when Barron was a baby and again when he was about 5.
  • I'd like to mention that not every single actor who has lines in a television series is notable, not every member of SAG-AFTRA or of Actors' Equity is notable (per WP:ENT), much less when they appear on a TV show as a member of an audience or when they are on television in momentary appearances as themselves when a baby or when a toddler or young child. Merely appearing on a television show does not automatically convey notability.
  • Do the citations and the asserted facts prove WP:GNG - which states "...if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
WP:GNG states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Shearonink (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please!! Read WP:RECENT. 100,000 hits in the midst of a major historic event during which he was in a very peripheral role doesn't "prove" anything except the fact that at a particular moment in time a lot of people had an interest in the entire Trump phenomenon. That hyperbole is a huge logical fallacy. Two things can occur at the same time and not "prove" anything. And for the fourth time (at least) no first child has had an article as a child. Which part of "as a child" do you not understand? Again, please stop making the same arguments over and over. It accomplishes nothing except annoying the rest of us. Sundayclose (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that voberage of this millionaire child has been continuous since his birth a decade ago, and encompasses everything from fashion shoots to articles about his full-floor, penthouse bedroom, to what school he attends. It is the opposite of WP:RECENT. And Note that I am not claiming that he has ever done anything. What I am claiming is that coverage of his childhood has been extensive and international.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point. He had insufficient notability prior to Donald Trump's activities over the past year, and the recent (hence WP:RECENT) news coverage does not add any more notability unless Barron emerges as notable in his own right. Sundayclose (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A misunderstanding of WP:INHERIT, which specifies that people notable for nothing except a close, personal relationship to a famous person qualify for articles despite they having never accomplished anything - provided only that coverage of them passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INHERIT states: "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG [bolding/italicizing mine]. So, it's not the coverage that passes GNG, it's if the subject passes GNG. General notability guidelines then states as one of its parameters: ' "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.' So, is the coverage of Barron Trump more than trivial mentions(notwithstanding the fact that we know his mother used her own brand of moisturizer on him, he has a penthouse floor to himself, an entire article on how he was very sleepy during his father's acceptance speech, etc.)? It is true that the has been in the limelight since birth, but he's 1) 10 years old and 2)seriously, the articles & sources do not go into great depth (he certainly fails all the parameters of WP:ANYBIO). Shearonink (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, I don't see anyone arguing that young Trump has ever accomplished anything. Here, in fact, is a typical article about him (Note that he was 12 weeks old when it was published in a mass circulation daily newspaper) "little Barron is an incredibly mellow, beautiful child. His features resemble those of a very young Donald – minus the hair, thank goodness. His eyelashes are the longest I’ve seen. And he’s blessed with a terrifically mellow personality." [1] Ick. But that is my personal opinion. My opinion as an editor is that coverage is so massive that, as per WP:INHERIT, we keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not an invalid reason simply because you think it is, and certainly no more invalid than your repeated claims that Barron should have an article because other first children do, even after you have been told repeatedly that no first child has had an article as a child. WP:INHERIT may allow it in some circumstances but that by no means makes it a slam dunk. Otherwise every child a someone famous would have their own article. That's why we are having this discussion to determine consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the multiple efforts to create independent articles for the Obama girls show that there is a good deal of sentiment to have stand-alone articles for Presidential children; all of whom appearl to already have them, excepting only the Obama daughters.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: For the FIFTH TIME, the fact that other first children have articles is irrelevant because none of them had articles as children. Please stop pointing out to us that other first children have articles; you know, there is a policy related to your constantly making the same statement again and again and again and again: WP:IDHT, and it's considered disruptive editing. So please stop it, and this time I'm serious enough to suggest that continuing to repeat it may lead to other action. And you seem to have a serious problem with cause and effect. First you make the utterly absurd comment that a lot of recent views of Barron's article "proves" that Wikipedia readers want an article on him. Now you're saying that failed articles for the Obama girls means someone should have an article. Thanks goodness we don't have to use your contorted logic to determine Wikipedia content. Sundayclose (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you mention it, 100,000 page views in a single day is kind of a big deal, and unusually large #s of page hits are often referenced at AFD as a Keep argument. But it's the number of hits on a news google search that truly persuades: [2]. Plus, (see below), can you explain why we should delete this when we kept Tiffany Trump?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of absurd ideas are "referenced at AfD", but that doesn't mean it has any validity. WP:ILIKEIT is often used as an argument (in fact has been used in this very discussion), but fortunately we don't decide Wikipedia content by what people like and how many Google hits it gets. As for Tiffany Trump, by all means please nominate her article for deletion, but . . . uh oh . . . if you did that it might mean a first child should only have an article if he/she is independently notable . . . hmmm. I'll wait and see if you nominate Tiffany's article, but I'm not holding my breath. Sundayclose (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: Please see WP:WAX. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am familiar (I do edit at AFD regularly, and have done for a long while). However, the parallel here is so exact that it truly seems necessary to consider that the only difference between the two articles is the timing, i.e., Tiffany was kept when Daddy was merely a candidate; but Barron is up for deletion with an extraordinary degree of Sturm und Drang in the discussion and the only qualitative difference between the sourcing of the 2 articles is that Daddy has been elected President.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. In fact, I'm not at all convinced that this Tiffany person should have an article. Surely when Malia and Sasha Obama didn't get stand-alone articles during the last 8 years when their father was President (despite numerous debates I'm sure), someone who's not even the son of a President at this point (unlike the Obama daughters) and who is a virtual unknown compared to them shouldn't have a stand-alone article. --Tataral (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tataral:, Can you please offer a valid argument for deletion. In you Nom (top of page) you make 2 veritably inaccurate assertions. First, that WP:NOTINHERITED applies (see my response at top of page), and, second, that "His much older half-siblings are independently notable for their various public roles and activities, unlike him, not just for being the children of their father." patently not an accurate description of Tiffany Trump (I suppose that you had conflated her with Ivanka), or one of the several wives. Look, I hate, hate, hate the fact that, like the contemptible Kardashians, Amy Carter, Tiffany, and Barron Trump get the intense press coverage that too many serious national issues lack. And don't get me started on how meaningless I find the entire topic of United States presidential pets, let alone Tricia Nixon. The thing is, however, arguments that appear to boil down to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. If you can bring a persuasive argument for deletion, please do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Ivanka is notable, but that Tiffany is not. I'll wait until we are finished with this discussion, which looks likely to result in Barron being merged into Family of Donald Trump, before I propose the same in regard to that article. The Malia and Sasha Obama case has set an extremely strong precedent over the last 8 years. --Tataral (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tataral, you started the 3rd Tiffany AFD only a week after the 2nd Tiffany AFD closed as keep. Vowing now to start a 4th Tiffany AFD is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT WP:DISRUPT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, you are the one pointing out time and again here how Tiffany is not independently notable. At the time of those previous AfDs, we didn't have an article on the Family of Donald Trump (based on the model of Family of Barack Obama, which is where we find Malia and Sasha Obama) into which this content could be merged. If this discussion results in Barron being merged into that article (the likely outcome), then it would be reasonable to consider merging Tiffany for the reasons you have pointed out in this discussion as well (which would not be the same as deleting the article, which was discussed in those old AfDs). If you had not insisted that Tiffany is not any more notable than Barron (who is clearly not notable at all), we wouldn't even have this discussion about Tiffany. --Tataral (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory accusing someone of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black. E.M.Gregory has repeated the same argument about first children having articles as adults numerous times (five times at last count) as a rationale for Barron having an article as a child, even after being asked to stop repeating it. It's interesting how some people use a policy to accuse but conveniently ignore their own violation of the policy. Sundayclose (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this suggestion. At this particular time the consensus seems to be merge, and the merge has already occurred for the most part. If his notability increases there could be additional discussion at Talk:Family of Donald Trump. Content is never permanent on Wikipedia, so whatever is decided here is always subject to change. Sundayclose (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He should be merged into family of Donald Trump, which is about his immediate family, not the general, broader and more historical Trump family article (where he can be mentioned in the family tree, but where it would be awkward to have a whole section devoted to him. --Tataral (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's what I meant - now corrected. There are three Trump family articles at the moment, and it's becoming something of a blur... Wikishovel (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, Barron is a child who would be WP:NOTABLE even if his father had not been elected, all 4 of his siblings are; and Tiffany Trump was deemed WP:NOTABLE before Daddy was elected even though she has never done anything either. Young Barron has been intensely covered by the media since birth, BECAUSE of who Daddy is; BECAUSE he will inherit a large fortune; BECAUSE this child has an entire floor of a Fifth Avenue penthouse as his private quarters; and, yes, because his parents have for years invited celebrity photographers to shoot and publish photo spreads of Mama, Papa and son in ultra-posh surroundings. Here : [3] is such a photo published in today's Houston Chronicle, obviously taken a few years ago. Go ahead, scroll through to the one of him sitting on a plush penthouse lion. The story, by WP:NOTABLE journalist Kyrie O'Connor is entitled 'Little Donald': 9 things to know about Barron Trump. Point is, this rich kid passes WP:GNG not because he's ever done anything, but simply because "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" exists. In spades er..., in Trumps.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And one more time (I'm losing count it has happened so much), E.M.Gregory repeats himself/herself and violates WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, a policy that E.M.Gregory only seems to be aware of when it's used to accuse others. And again E.M.Gregory, make up your mind; you repeatedly use Tiffany Trump's lack of notability as evidence that Barron should have an article, but you challenge people who want her article deleted. Sundayclose (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tiffany and Barron do not lack notability, they lack accomplishment. Neither of them has ever done anything except be born and grow up rich. Both are famous for being famous. We have a policy that covers this WP:NOTINHERITED: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." What I do not see, Sundayclose, is a policy-based argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And there's yet another WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please stop repeating the same things again and again and again and again. Sundayclose (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a policy-based argument for preferring redirect over keep?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this AfD succeeds, the policy is WP:CONSENSUS, which would then take precedence over any other policy. Do you have a policy based reason to repeat the same arguments every day? Sundayclose (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The failure of editors to present a policy-based reason for deletion other than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: So you feel that the behavior of other editors here and the fact that WP:IJUSTLIKEIT justifies violating the major policy against WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. No surprise there. But keep it up and I plan to do something about it. Consider this a warning. And let me clue you in to a fact that most people on Wikipedia already know: A WP:CONSENSUS to delete or redirect an article does not require "a policy-based reason for deletion". Again, note my warning in this message. Sundayclose (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • His parents' vulgarity and habit of showcasing their riches in the style of the Russian nouveau riche is not an argument for the notability of their child, for Christ's sake. --Tataral (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anything, Barron is the only child between the Presidential couple (Donald and Melania). The rest is just half-brothers/sisters. He is the only child of the presidential couple. And joins the notability of other presidential children and pets etc.BabbaQ (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The US does only have one president according to its Constitution. Donald Trump's other children are just as much his children as Barron. They are not "just" half-anything. --Tataral (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note, however, that as the only minor child he is the most likely to move into the White House. This turns out to matter rather intensely. I have mentioned Amy Carter above in part because I saw a play not long ago about her. (First Daughter Suite [4]) I had totally forgotten (or never known) that she has a sibling, Jack Carter (politician), let alone that she had 3 siblings, 2 of whom don't appear to have pages on Wikipedia. Point is that there was a play about her and not about her siblings because she was a White House child. Fact is that at least since Teddy Roosevelt the country has had a particular fascination with the minor children of Presidents; kids who live in the White House. We hear far less about President's adult children. David Eisenhower (the White House grandchild after whom Camp David was named) was very widely covered at the time because he was a kid who was often at the White House. When a kid is about to move into the White House s/he gets the kind of coverage that confers notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His older children are on the transition team. Barron is not. They are notable for their activities in business, politics and society. Barron is not. Reliable sources seem to agree that Ivanka will play a prominent role and that Barron will not play any role at all, considering that he is a small child. --Tataral (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Obamas chose to protect their daughters' privacy. The Trumps have sought publicity for this child since the day he was born, but only to a degree. note that we do not have a bio about Barron Trump's nanny although we do have one about Amy Carter's nanny, Mary Prince (nanny). The Carters made that choice. The Trumps choose what to publicize and what not to publicize. Just as the Obamas and the Carters did.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: Consider this a final warning for violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DISRUPTIVE. We get it that you're a fan of this boy, but stop saying everything over and over. Sundayclose (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am a "fan" not of the boy but, rather, of the policy of keeping articles at AFD on a purist assessment of available sourcing. I often weigh in on pages about topics of which I am no fan. Today these included Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasha Eurich, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hatfield, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Hillary. Please try to WP:AGF and consider WP:CIVIL, WP:BLUDGEON,and WP:BOOMERANG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. Your repeated violations of WP:DISRUPTIVE eliminated much of the need to assume good faith. I'll continue to call you out on that policy violation and escalate it if you continue. Civil?? Again, pot calling the kettle black. You accused another editor here of violating the very same policies that you have frequently violated. Sundayclose (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- As I said, I'd keep, or I'd merge. Barron is a minor, but he is somewhat of a celebrity, and I'd either give him an article, or I'd merge it in, if I had control of what happened to the article.The brave celery (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At some point above that I do not feel like finding someone mentions seeing a play about Amy Carter. When someone makes a play about Barron Trump we can consider him stand alone notable, until then I think we should follow the example of Malia Obama and not have a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment people are free to do anything to the article on Malia Obama they want. If an editor feels they have the sources to show significant coverage of her I would encourage them to boldly create the article. However that is not relevant to this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect What has Barron Trump himself done in his life that separates him from any other 10 year old? Has he ever even been recorded on camera talking? I will admit that there are cases where a child might have an article on Wikipedia because of something other than something they did directly, though usually only if the child was involved in an event where they were the central focus. Barron Trump has been present on stage at several notable events in the past year, though he didn't speak and he wasn't the central focus of the event. In addition to that, I almost don't feel it is morally right to have an article for Barron Trump. I'm sure he doesn't want media coverage; if he read this article, it's only stuff about him that he has no control over. Children tend to only get media coverage, and then Wikipedia articles, when either they did something very positive (creating or doing something notable that they choose to do) or something very negative (for example committing a high profile crime that might constitute an article about them). Barron Trump didn't do either; he just lives in Manhattan and goes to school. WClarke (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP enough is enough case closed !---User:Fmm134 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmm134 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This statement lacks any rationale and should be disregarded by the closing admin. See WP:JUSTAVOTE. Neutralitytalk 05:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is also the third "keep" added by User:Fmm134. Please don't try to sway the debate by ballot-box stuffing: it's a discussion, not a ballot. Wikishovel (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mere conclusion without any rationale and should be disregarded by the closing admin. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. Neutralitytalk 05:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that it's WP:NOTABLE is a solid argument for keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree to protect from likely re-creation for a few years, unless something dramatic happens (in which case we can justifiably lift the restriction). — JFG talk 08:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes GNG by a wide mile. I get that two editors dislike the "Nouveau riche" father (Which violates NPOV, BTW). Books are written about presidential children. Referring to the father as a "publicity seeker" only proves the point of the kid passing GNG by the way. That doesn't mean i am a fan of the 10 year old, either. GuzzyG (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Family of Donald Trump: per Obama's children. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Family of Donald Trump. He's still a minor and still not independently notable of Daddy, which were the main points for deleting it when I nommed it the first time. Probably shouldn't have been recreated with such an overwhelming consensus not to keep it the first time. pbp 22:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Barron Trump is more notable than the many minor children of the British royal family who are not Prince George of Cambridge. For example, Lady Louise Windsor, who is a first cousin of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (George's father) has had her own page since shortly after her birth in 2003. She is currently 8th in line to the throne and it's extremely unlikely she will ever move up the list. An even less notable British royal child with their own page is Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones, born 2002, whose father is a 1st cousin of the Prince of Wales. She is 20th in line to the throne. If these and many other children of (what are officially termed) minor royals have their own page, then it seems irrational and unsupportable for the minor child of the President-elect of the USA not to have his own page. Attempts to argue Barron Trump should not have his own page appear politically motivated, and if they were to succeed would diminish the credibility and reputation of Wikipedia in the eyes of many. I see no reason why Malia and Sasha Obama should not have their own pages, for the same reasons. --EvidenceFairy (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EvidenceFairy: Please remember to WP:Assume good faith when other editors disagree with you in an AFD. Assuming that the arguments put forward above are all smokescreens for political opposition makes about as much sense as assuming that your case for not merging is also made for political reasons. Wikishovel (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiShovel: Please remember to apply your reminders consistently to all editors, including those above who have littered this page with inappropriate comments that are obviously and plainly politically motivated. I am not going to spend my time learning how to reference them for you but as someone new to this community, the obvious bad faith is undeniable. The content of my arguments are relevant and I believe politically neutral. Clearly inaccurate claims were made about an heir presumptive to the British throne being the only minor child to merit an exemption from the notability policy. I corrected this information. EvidenceFairy (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the argument of WP:WHATABOUTX has been advanced several times above. Let's please focus on whether the subject of the article is notable enough for a separate article per established Wikipedia policy, and not on what's written about other, unrelated people. Wikishovel (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was an actor on a few shows, which means he is entitled to an article. As he is getting older he will probably do a few more notable things, which will earn him the right to an article even more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdlover2002 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 20 November 2016 (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_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1171459002"