Talk:Barron Trump
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barron Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives (index): 1 |
 | Barron Trump has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_(3x4_close_cropped).jpg)
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Submission requirements, why aren't they met?
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I went ahead and completed the significant coverage column. —ADavidB 14:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I went ahead and completed the significant coverage column. —ADavidB 14:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
Response to recent decline
@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)
- 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)
- 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).
- 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)
- The comeback regarding lack of significant coverage was unexpected, apparently with no regard for the source assessment. —ADavidB 17:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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).
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 (talk • edits) 19:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Political affiliation
Question #1
Comments left by AfC reviewers
Education
Citizenship
Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 00:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
GA review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Barron Trump/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mdm.Bla (talk · contribs) 22:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article, which is currently the oldest GA nominee. Proactively saying that I may take a couple of extra days for this review (maximum 10). mdm.bla 22:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Notes
- Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Review
- Well-written:
- Lead section follows MoS. There are a few citations to the most contentious statements. Content is good. Works well for a bio. mdm.bla 03:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Layout follows MoS. mdm.bla 04:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- The phrase
Trump is said to have made many such suggestions...
reads as a weasel word. I'd recommend attributing the statement to the sources. Overall, I don't see any other potentially problematic words to watch. mdm.bla 04:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC) - Agreed. I'm not exactly sure where the person who wrote that sentence got that conclusion, so I've gone ahead and changed the whole thing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
- For a list of explanatory footnotes or shortened citation footnotes: "Notes", "Endnotes" or "Footnotes"
- For a list of full citations or general references: "References" or "Works cited"
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- @Mdm.Bla: The content there appears to be fine and only discusses that he was the subject of criminal cases into sex trafficking and rape. The association between Trump and Tate would seem to be excessive, but The New York Times mentioned Trump several times in its article, so there is no extrapolation in assuming that their connection assured Tate's release.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
- I tweaked the caption. The image is not of the actual ball given to Trump, but an example of the Mechta's design. —ADavidB 00:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Adavidb: I discovered that there are multiple images of the actual ball on Commons (see image search on Commons). I've boldly replaced the image and caption, although feel free to edit. mdm.bla 19:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | The prose is well-written overall. It could use some grammar polishing to flow better, but nothing is screaming "wrong." mdm.bla 04:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC) |  Pass |
| (b) (MoS) |
|
Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | References are laid out in two sections, Barron Trump#References and Barron Trump#Works cited. These sections follow the relevant manual of style guideline, which states: This is how the citations are being handled, with print sources consistently using short citations/the works cited section and online sources consistently using full citations. mdm.bla 19:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC) |
Pass |
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | No concerns with the source selection. Citations are inline, properly set up, and properly placed. mdm.bla 00:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC) | Pass |
| (c) (original research) | No evidence of OR. mdm.bla 01:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC) | Pass |
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | Earwig highlights one potential copyvio at 57.9%, but the publication date is after the relevant text was written onwiki (i.e. they copied from us). None of the other candidates bring up anything concerning. mdm.bla 01:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC) | Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | The article addresses Trump's early and personal life (expected of a BLP). It also talks about his status as a public figure and his involvement in his father's politics, as well as his career in his own right. Doesn't go out of scope anywhere. mdm.bla 04:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC) | Pass |
| (b) (focused) | Overall length is good, none of the sections are going on and on and on into intricate detail. Summary style is not needed as there are no subtopics with dedicated articles at this time. | Pass |
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| Most of the article follows NPOV. The section describing the association between Trump and Tate is giving Tate undue weight. This article doesn't need to go into detail about Tate's alleged conduct. mdm.bla 04:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
|
Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Four images present, three of which are tagged PD. One is tagged CC BY 4.0 and is properly attributed. mdm.bla 22:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC) | Pass |
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | The three images with Barron as a subject are appropriate and well-captioned. I am unsure of whether the caption on the Adidas Telstar 18 image is correct, as the file description indicates that the ball pictured was given to Qatari sport delegates at the Kremlin the day before the 2018 Russia–United States summit. mdm.bla 22:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
|
Pass |
Result
Discussion
- @Mdm.Bla: did you do a source spot-check? Ie; check a certain percentage of the citations (10-20% is a good benchmark) to see if they fully support the text? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Generalissima Yes, I should have commented on it but I did that partially in 2b and partially in 2c. mdm.bla 06:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)