Talk:Barron Trump

(Redirected from Talk:Barron William Trump)
Latest comment: 2 days ago by BD2412 in topic Comments left by AfC reviewers

Submission requirements, why aren't they met?

edit

There seems to be 2 issues:

- The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations

What exactly isn't met here? there are 29 sources, the footnotes are used properly, as for the type of statements (I checked 5, not all) they abide by the rules.

- This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article (Basically stated by Dan arndt as : The only coverage is because he is the president's son - nothing to establish notability in his own right.)

This is true, he is first and foremost the president's son, but because Donald Trump is the 2nd most popular wikipedia page, this in of itself should make Barron qualifiable (to have his page) as being direct family to Donald Trump. Donald has mentioned Barron several times publicly, including when Barron was present (for exemple, during the inauguration)

Also, he has been politically involved with his father's 2024 campaign, if a lack of sources is the problem, please state it.

With that, I will add another source and information of the page, and resubmit, if it gets rejected, please detail on what the problem is HenriDeadMort (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

If it helps, I decided to create a source assessment table to keep track of sources, and I encourage you and other editors to help fill in the remaining blanks wherever you can. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I added a good bit to the assessment. More questions about reliability and significant coverage remain, for others who want to dig into it. —ADavidB 14:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I went ahead and completed the significant coverage column. —ADavidB 14:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think now the citations are fine. See my edit if its good. @Adavidb :) Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 18:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I believe the assessment is now up-to-date with the draft's current set of 36 sources. There are still a few reliability questions. Most sources provide significant coverage, which would count toward subject notability, though isn't required for usage by the article. —ADavidB 09:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
It looks good to me, I assess articles and I have seen articles that no where near the quality of this one. I would rate it at least Start-class and maybe even C-class in it's current form. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 20:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Response to recent decline

edit

@Spinster300: The amount of references that have been assessed as definitely helping Barron towards notability (26) is greater than the total amount of references cited on the Kai Trump article, not to mention that the "not inherited" argument has failed to get the latter deleted in the past. If you decide to take a look at the source assessment table and suspect some of the green tiles to be strawgrasping, feel free to try correcting them. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just as a general view: I think AfC reviewers should be leaving comments past the canned template message on the 2nd+ decline. SK2242 (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Dear MrPersonHumanGuy and SK2242, thank you for your pings and my apologies for any disruption caused. My decline was in agreement that it is difficult to disentangle the subject from his father's presidency in any significant way, even with reliable sources, to establish entirely independent notability. If my decline was disruptive, I am happy to revert the draft to its previous version, or resubmit it for another reviewer to take a look. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC).Reply
I never thought your decline was disruptive at all. If by "revert the draft to its previous version" you mean you'd undo your decline, then thanks for offering to do so. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
The comeback regarding lack of significant coverage was unexpected, apparently with no regard for the source assessment. —ADavidB 17:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm completely new to this draft and I stumbled here after editing Kai Trump. Now, I think her notability is on shaky grounds, but she has her on YouTube channel with over a million followers and what is apparently a fledgling (or at least lucrative) golf career. Even if her fame is based on lineage, she now has something that's verifiably hers. I don't know that you can say the same for Barron.

Most of the independently verifiable information in the draft is basic biographical data that don't establish his notability. He attended a prep school in suburban DC! He likes soccer! He didn't serve as an RNC delegate! (I have no idea why any of that is in the intro paragraph)

On the other hand, the stuff that could establish his notability feels pretty sketchy. He and a podcaster are "edited with aiding the Trump campaign in its attempts to appeal to young voters" but by whom? And in what capacity? He made suggestions that helped his father win the 2024 election. According to whom? His mom and dad. He was involved in Martin Shkreli's Trump-themed memecoin. Says who? Martin Shkreli! The point is, Barron's notability is almost entirely dependent on people who are interested in establishing Barron's notability, or people trying to curry favors with said people. And all of this would suffice as sections in articles about his father or the 2024 election

So even if this technically passes WP:N, I don't know that there's anything there worth writing a whole article about until he does something outside of his father's politics and described by someone outside his family/campaign insiders. Adeletron 3030 (talkedits) 19:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Political affiliation

edit

Aside from being descended from a politician, is there a source for the proposition that the subject actually has a political affiliation? BD2412 T 21:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

While he declined, he was chosen at age 18 to be an at-large delegate for Florida at the 2024 RNC convention. This strongly suggests a Republican affiliation. —ADavidB 07:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Realistically, his aborted selection for that position was a matter of family ties rather than party ties. I am curious as to whether there is any source specifically stating his party affiliation as a matter or registration or other record. BD2412 T 17:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Question #1

edit

What's wrong with the page? I see nothing wrong with it. MichaelJacksonFan234 (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Read the AFC evaluations, the comments on this draft talk page and Wikipedia:Source assessment/Barron Trump. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would note that there has been substantial development since the most recent set of evaluations. On that basis, I have promoted the article. BD2412 T 17:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Comments left by AfC reviewers

edit
  •   Comment: I want to accept this. The main question in my mind is whether there's been a change since the last AfD that addresses the main issues brought up by redirect !voters.
    Looking at the AfD, the two issues were "independent notability" and "low-profile individuals". In other words, 1) is Barron Trump only notable for being Donald Trump's son 2) and is Barron Trump avoiding publicity?
    Since the AfD, I think both have been addressed by Barron's cryptocurrencies projects and his affiliation with influencers.
    Specifically, 1) appeared to be interpreted at that AfD as requiring the coverage to be meaningful even if Barron wasn't Donald's son. For example, multiple redirect !voters discussed Barron's status as an RNC political delegate, which wouldn't have received coverage if Barron was a random person.
    However, after the AfD, WP:SIGCOV has been created/added. A cited New York Times article says Barron Trump is now treated as an adviser by his father and as something of a next-generation MAGA mascot by his father’s supporters[1], we see discussions of his role in Trump's decision to go on the Joe Rogan experience as well as being credited as the mastermind behind his father’s push into the “manosphere” media and finally credited for Andrew Tate's release from a Romanian prison.[2] In other words, Barron is now engaging in political activity within the Trump administration. Would he have that role if he wasn't Trump's son? Maybe not, but the main criticism is that (quoting Mangoe) the material is stuff which for the most part could be written about any recent high school grad. For instance, Donald saying that he didn't think Barron had yet had a girlfriend is the type of coverage that doesn't satisfy 1) which is why I removed it.[3]
    Likewise, 2) appears to be addressed as well. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual gives examples of high-profile activities as willingly participating in the political sphere or providing commercial endorsements. It's already shown that Barron has started being politically active by engaging with influencers. But Barron is also involved with and endorsing World Liberty Financial. He is currently listed as a "Web3 Ambassador" [4] and formerly as a "DeFi visionary".[5] All of this coverage occurred after the AfD.
    I can't accept this because I'm not an admin. Even if I was, I probably wouldn't accept unilaterally. But I think it's fair to re-examine whether or not the issues brought up at the last AfD are still applicable based on the article's sourcing right now. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)Reply