Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Trump

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 Donald Trump#Personal life. J04n(talk page) 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Trump

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

Notability is not inherited. Her minimal career does not establish any sort of notability independent of her famous father (and her less-famous mother), and the most extensive previous version of the BLP (which was deleted for copyvio) didn't do anything to advance the idea that she met the notability threshold. (The copyvio was from The Frisky, which doesn't inspire confidence.) Horologium (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Saying she can't inherit notability doesn't mean it doesn't exist. She has plenty of her own coverage (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and clears WP:GNG handily, if not WP:BAND. ~~Advise the nominator to run WP:BEFORE checks more thoroughly next time.~~ Dea db eef 04:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do run "before" checks before nominating, thank you. However, I don't consider "thefrisky" or the Daily Mail to be reliable sources, and none of the sources you cite do anything to establish her notability independent of her father. The HuffPo piece is nothing more than a gossipy little item about offhand comments her mother made, the IBT piece refers to her as an "aspiring pop star" (as is any kid who puts together a mix tape or forms a garage band), and the Yahoo!Shine piece (the only one from a reliable source that is substantial enough to qualify as "substantial coverage" and implies notability, through her famous parents) notes that she considers music "just a hobby", which blows a great big hole in your assertion that she meets WP:BAND. Instead of immediately assuming that I am incompetent or failed to do research before nominating this piece of pop ephemera for deletion, maybe you should consider that sourcing is important, and articles about people who are only notable because of their parents don't meet the notability guideline. If the subject actually had a recording career (with songs or albums that charted or were in some way significant), if she had a modeling career that had more than a brief mention in a non-RS pop-culture website, or if she was something more than a college student whose divorced parents are super-famous, you'd have a case to be made that she passes the GNG. None of those conditions have been met, however, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of the cites discusses her in the context of one or both of her parents. In fact, had you read my nomination, you would have noticed that I addressed that link from "thefrisky", and how it had been in an earlier version of the article (as a cut-and-paste, no less). Horologium (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread my reply; I meant that I believed she met WP:GNG and not WP:BAND, not that she met both. Moving on. My position stands at strong keep for the simple reason that she passes WP:42 easily. The point is that she clearly has:

Significant coverage: See the links above. The stories all feature her exclusively (or almost exclusively), and 1, 3, and 4 are substantial in length. Whether they mention her as completely detached from her father is irrelevant; of course he will be mentioned. He's Donald Trump. But the articles themselves are all about her. (A note about the Mail and Frisky: Whether or not they're reliable, they have covered her exclusively, and the Mail at length. And the Mail is a major publication, if a tabloid.)
Reliable sources: I'll grant you that Frisky isn't exactly a journalistic haven, and the Mail is questionable (generously), but collectively there's enough reliable information through all of the sources to constitute a meaty article.
Independent: Obviously, she's not affiliated with them.

All told, she has separate notability from her father by virtue of the collective coverage she has received. Ignoring the fact that she has "Trump" in her name, she has enough coverage to stand against WP:GNG on her own. The fact that she hasn't done anything worthwhile doesn't mean that she isn't notable; that's a fallacy, considering GNG is the standard for inclusion and not the individual's accomplishments.

Other name-clearing notes: I saw that you tagged the copyvio from Frisky; however, that didn't mean that the article shouldn't exist as a whole. I also did not say that you were "incompetent" or "failed to do research". The reason I suggested that you WP:BEFORE more (a comment I now withdraw, as it is clear that you have researched this piece well) was that there were sources outside of what you seemed to be aware of that were viable. I never claimed that you didn't do it at all—but as I said, I withdraw the comment with apologies. No offense was meant.

Anyways, my !vote stands for the reasons given. Dea db eef 22:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant, hold-my-nose keep. The articles Deadbeef has provided are all about her. She even rates a paragraph in Forbes. The fact that the media coverage is because of her father is immaterial. The same could be said of presidential relatives. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure how the Daily Mail is not WP:RS. Seems to be accepted by others in the community. Anyways, going at this from WP:GNG, she meets the threshold. I understand that notability is not inherent, but she IS THE SUBJECT of significant coverage from reliable sources. Inherint notability would be her being notable just for being his daughter WITHOUT having significant coverage. It's like making an article about everyone in a band just because the band is notable. However, each member of the band would be notable if they meet WP:GNG by having the significant coverage. I was able to find this, 2 from Huffington, this, and [1]. While I would love to have this article deleted (just don't personally like the topic), it meets guidelines and should be kept. Could probably be taken down to a stub, though. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Marla Maples and/or Donald Trump. Notability independent of her parents is not established in any of the sources. --Crunch (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Does President Obama have children? Wikipedia says no. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the personal section of her father's article. Currently isn't much in the article worth merging. Sarah 04:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
redirect for now, probably to father as he is better known, per user:Sarah, but may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Since the article is only going to be linked from her father and mother's pages, it's a bit obscure. At the moment we have a teenager who can make the tabloids as someone's daughter as an excuse to include some photos of a young lady per WP:HOTTIE. Possible that she may do other things in the public eye (e.g. the upcoming film) that would result in additional coverage and justify an article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2013 (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.