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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Trump[edit]

Tiffany 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)

User:Gatoclass has expressed notability concerns regarding this article. This is a procedural nomination. SSTflyer 10:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 10:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear about this, I pulled a hook related to this article from the WP:DYK queue because I noticed the article had recently been recreated from a redirect with no apparent discussion, and as I didn't have time to look more closely at the issue, decided that discretion would be the better part of valour. So I have not personally taken a view on whether or not the article should be retained or merged back to the Trump article as it was previously. The issue does need to be resolved however, and I'd prefer to see that done by discussion rather than by unilateral decision. Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Donald Trump and/or Marla Maples. Just not seeing independent notability for stand alone article; notability is not inherited. Kierzek (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems to have some independent news coverage. At MOST, this should be a redirect to a section under Donald Trump. As such, I question why this was brought to AfD at all? The only alternative to keep here would be merge/redirect, which does not need an AfD entry. We're overcrowded here as it is... Fieari (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is all fluff growing out of who her parents are, nothing that really passes General Notability Guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She can be mentioned in her parents' articles, but nothing here suggests that she's earned a standalone BLP as an independent topic in her own right. Notability is not inherited, and the strongest claim of standalone notability here is the number of followers she has on Instagram — but no number of followers on any social networking platform constitutes a notability freebie in and of itself if that's the most substantive notability claim you can come up with. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - breadth of articles indicate WP:GNG criteria is met. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per this reference from the article, "Unlike Donald’s elder offspring — Donald Jr., 37; Ivanka, 34; and Eric, 31 — Tiffany hasn’t appeared on “The Apprentice” or even on the Manhattan charity-gala circuit." Intentionally or unintentionally, she has not gained the notability that her elder siblings have gained. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Keep this discussion open for another two weeks. She is supposed to speak at the 2016 Republican National Convention next week, and at that point she could become notable, if she delivers a notable speech. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article is quite in-depth coverage of Tiffany Trump! ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This "in-depth" article, titled "What’s the deal with Donald Trump’s mystery daughter?" does not give any information about her to make her notable. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it's not clear: she's a "mystery" because she is currently not notable. 19:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sometimes the sky is blue (talk • contribs)

• Keep - huge amount of sources available, including the in-depth CNN piece currently there. Definitely meets the GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand – She is obviously receiving more attention now due to her father's presidential bid, however compared with the previous nomination for deletion there are now multiple independent RS covering her as an individual, not merely as "daughter of". Besides, if we moved back to a redirect, it would be hard to decide whether to redirect to Donald Trump or to Marla Maples, because she was raised by her mother despite bearing her father's name. Finally, to answer the point about having fewer personal accomplishments than her siblings, well she's also much younger so that's natural and expected. — JFG ^talk 05:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge: Yes, deletion will just get this article recreated again. Keep the link blue. Why this is an AfD and not a merge discussion is beyond me. She probably has enough notoreity and third-party coverage to meet GNG as a minor famous person. So she wouldn't likel be famous except for who her daddy is. That also could be said of her daddy... Montanabw^(talk) 07:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolitely keep-Keep this soutce and just link her parents and family — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:247:C200:E5A:99D8:14C8:F349:72E (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: her presumed notability is exclusively due to her father and likely to be only temporary.--Desyman (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Strong keep. The daughter of such a major world figure is likely to be somebody that people look for encyclopedic information on. It may be argued that it is not inherited, but somebody that is going to be referenced - even if just in passing - in major news articles over the coming months and be subject to scrutiny justifies inclusion here. KaisaL (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting to a strong keep because on further thought, of course she's notable. The Business Insider article even lampooned her lack of an article here. KaisaL (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or keep – in that order – per what everybody already said. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 23:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and incorporate in one of her parents articles. We could say everything this article says in a few sentences or less. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no different from all the other articles on wiki just because of who their family members are.2600:8805:5805:A00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability isn't inherited, and there's nothing of value that isn't present/can't be included in either of her parents' articles. The Instagram stuff isn't really enough here to warrant a separate page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The article subject passes WP:GNG and therefore should be retained. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 10:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's plenty of independent, in-depth sources available to indicate her notability and satisfy WP:GNG. My impression is that editors are getting caught up in the fact that she's one of Trump's younger children, and arbitrarily applying WP:NOTINHERITED. She's been discussed in depth by a dozen different, reliable, high-profile sources. That's enough to meet our notability guidelines. ERK ^talk 11:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is my first choice. Alternatively, we could create a stand-alone Trump family article and merge it there; that'd be my second choice. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article looks fine now, and she is notable as aforementioned. NikolaiHo 17:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Articles in CNN and Business Insider with her as sole subject, to take the two best, unambiguously satisfy the definition of WP:GNG. The WP:INHERITED essay refers to arguments which disregard GNG in favor of personal relationships, which is not the case here. FourViolas (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tiffany Trump has received a great deal of coverage in the media in the context of comments her father made on TV in 1994 in which he said he wondered what size her breasts were going to be (she was 1 at the time). I'm not sure if these comments belong in her article or his (or neither), though. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable enough on her own for a stand-alone article. MurielMary (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From [1], Despite partying with the “Rich Kids of Instagram,” interning at Vogue, dropping a pop single, and just being a Trump heir, the 21-year-old doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page yet. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be enough material on her for a stand-alone article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG LavaBaron (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Declaring that someone is not notable is itself a BLP matter as such a claim is derogatory. We should not be having procedural nominations of this sort, based on an offhand comment without due process. Andrew D. (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the comment made by Lemongirl942 and because of GNG. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 18:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's famous for being famous. Sufficient sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as although I nearly closed this myself, I am not seeing how there's any actual convincing of her own article; the best and far only claim of significance is the family, there's nothing yet actually suggesting the independent substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 12 July 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.