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. And merge relevant content from history, subject to consensus. The "keep" opinions tend to be on the weak side here. Sandstein 06:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Trump[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG per WP:NOTINHERITED. Same rationale for his wife Blaine Trump. — JFG ^talk 07:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect - Also considering this is but a stub, if worthy of mention, may be better merged as part of a more general Trump-related article, unless a particular event makes this person directly notable. PaleoNeonate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading other comments here, I have changed my vote from "delete" to "redirect" which appears more appropriate. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Probably better because he is Donald Trump's brother and notability is not inherited. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 12:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG - subject of dedicated coverage in Town & Country Magazine, New York Magazine, and WKXP, coupled with two more incidental mentions in the New York Times and a Simon & Schuster-published book. Article is a stub, but stub-status does not preclude notability. DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep:The independant sources should be enough to pass WP:GNG, regardless of reason.Burning Pillar (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The sibling of a US President is worthy of a page, however it needs work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees999 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the "Keep" !vote, I would never support inclusion of an article for this reason alone, as per WP:INHERITED. I think the article stands on its own based on its own sources, but we shouldn't include articles on presidential siblings just because they exist. DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I object to the Keep from Yankees999, since it claims that notability is inherited, contrary to WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Family of Donald Trump. It's a borderline case, but ~~two~~ one substantial references for a "notoriously ... publicity-averse" individual ~~aren't~~ isn't enough to support a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for his activities and believe he meets WP:GNG. MB298 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Admittively, a lot of the sources are titled "Donald Trump's brother" or something similar, but there are enough focused on Robert to barely pass GNG. He probably will always live in the shadow of his brother, but if more sources can be found to expand the career section, that would be helpful.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump: family connections alone aren't enough for a separate article per WP:BIOFAMILY, and he doesn't get much (if any attention) for things outside of being a Trump, but is a plausible search term. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump which is the encyclopedic place for random relatives of a notable person. Edison (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(OP) Redirect to Family of Donald Trump with a brief mention there, using sources from this article. — JFG ^talk 09:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional keep comment:WP:BIOFAMILIY states:"Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable." However, there are sources for this article that do NOT just mention this family member in passing:This and this refer to him as brother, but these sources are still about the brother, Robert Trump. And they describe him not in passing, but in detail. I doubt that WP:BIOFAMILY applies as a valid deletion criterion here.Burning Pillar (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per indepth coverage in WP:RS. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ~~none~~only one of the sources cited (Town & Country) can be considered "in-depth coverage". — JFG ^talk 03:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not require "in-depth coverage", we require significant coverage.Burning Pillar (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For my education, what exactly is the distinction between those two terms as you see it? And is each quantifiable in some way? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AdventurousSquirrel, I don't know if you were particularly looking for Burning Pillar's view or just a general answer but in case the latter, WP:BASIC and particularly footnote 7 gets at the relationship between significant coverage and depth of coverage, as well as evaluating for depth. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just looking for an answer in general, thank you Innisfree987. But to my understanding, and my reading of the guidelines you linked to, we actually do require coverage of a topic to have substantial depth in order to demonstrate notability. Burning Pillar's comment says we don't require "in-depth coverage", and seems to contrast "significance" and "depth", but as I understand it, they're two facets of the same thing. I.e., there should be significant coverage of adequate depth in order to demonstrate the notability of a topic. The problem with arguing about the relationship between the two words and adhering to it, of course, is that this is all an unquantifiable gray area anyways. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you AdventurousSquirrel: to my reading, the guidelines clearly indicate "depth" is a consideration in assessing "significant coverage"--but where exactly we draw the line is, I suppose, one of the main tasks of developing consensus at AfD. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has about as many google hits as "Roger Clinton Jr." and "Billy Carter". Seems a bit bias to try to extinguish the Trump family this way. --MarsRover (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits do not make notability, and there are many homonyms in a plain Google search. — JFG ^talk 03:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure neither JFG, nor anyone else, is trying to "extinguish the Trump family". We're discussing deleting an article, not issuing a death sentence. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Trump family article. Subject only appears in brief in sources because of his last name, not for anything he has personally done. ValarianB (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to family article. The article says little of substance besides his relation to Donald Trump and his distaste for publicity.LM2000 (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trump family article, article's subject isn't notable enough to have their own article. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets simplest of standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Keep !votes range from "Google hits" to "he's related to Trump". Fails WP:GNG and WP:INHERITED. Laurdecl ^talk 06:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Laurdecl, how do the comments of Darjeeling Tea fit into this?--Burning Pillar (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to the Trump family page. In terms of available sourcing: other than the T&C piece, I'm only seeing passing mentions and local coverage. In terms of the actual content, we have a very thin stub, almost half of which is already covered in the Trump family page--moving the couple of remaining sentences to that page is definitely preferable to having a pseudobio. We can certainly revisit if more sourcing becomes available to verify more independently-notable, encyclopedic content for this entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but on condition that it be expanded within the next 30 days to justify that it can be kept. Otherwise merge with Trump family. Mr Tan (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that the purpose AfD serves, to give an allotted amount of time to establish whether there's sourcing sufficient to sustain the entry? Already with the relist, there's been two weeks to find more sourcing, and I'm sure if someone said they had a lead on more research, there'd be no objection to a courtesy third relist (I know I'd be glad to know if there's more sourcing than I could find!), but otherwise it seems to me that WP:CRYSTAL applies--rather than holding out an entry (pseudobio) for hypothetical sources, it seems like the appropriate outcome would be merging with the potential to reexpand if new sourcing is identified. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was the same, the expiration time may be mostly over, unless of course the result is keep. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 18:15, 6 April 2017 (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.