Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Anne MacLeod Trump

Mary Anne MacLeod 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 'Snow keep'  (non-admin closure) -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability is not inherited, and subject fails WP:Notability (people) since she wasn't really noted for anything meaningful that doesn't have to do with family affiliations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, she is not the mother of Donald Trump the businessman, but Donald Trump the president of the United States. Parents of Presidents are almost always considered notable enough for their own articles, especially given the large amount of attention they have received. MB298 (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Being a President's parent isn't some automatic free pass at warranting a page; people need to be noted for their own merits regardless of who they are, not just simply for family connections. The notion that such parents "are almost always considered notable enough for their own articles" is also exaggerated at best when many don't have or warrant their own pages. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is the mother of the current US president. There are plenty of sources available to write a good article. Brad  v  04:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter; see my above point. Snuggums (talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does matter. See WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Brad  v  04:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Presumed" doesn't necessarily mean "is". As I stated before, subjects need to be noted for their own merits. She certainly isn't noted for any individual merits (i.e. not having to do with family connections). The relevant criteria for biographies is WP:Notability (people). <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll keep quoting then. WP:N says A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline . And "presumed" is further defined at WP:GNG&mdash;I suggest reading it. Brad  v  04:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have in fact read that, and it states "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included". It goes on to say "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article". <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep going: —perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What part of WP:PLOT does this violate? Brad  v  04:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While the WP:PLOT section of WP:What Wikipedia is not (which that page links) might not apply here, the section WP:NOTGENEALOGY does; Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a site full of genealogical entries of families. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 05:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean this part? Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. That's a pretty thin argument, especially since that section is specifically about lists. Brad  v  05:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the part I meant, though it actually isn't such a thin point; this article doesn't really serve much (if any) purpose aside from perhaps sharing some MacLeod/Trump family history. It doesn't really aid people's understanding of Donald or even Fred Trump. The section also isn't entirely about lists. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 05:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But what is there is well-sourced, and there are plenty more sources available. Therefore it meets WP:GNG. Brad  v  05:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because a subject is mentioned in good quality sources doesn't automatically mean it should have an article. As noted before, it creates an assumption, not a guarantee that a separate page is warranted. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 05:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, but there still needs to be a compelling reason to delete, and so far you haven't provided one. Brad  v  05:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I clearly indicated that she wasn't independently noted for anything of her own merit. It's a case of WP:BIO1E at best (the event or "1E" in this instance referring to her marriage to Fred or maybe giving birth to Donald, but either way is based on family connections instead of her own merits). <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 05:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't generally agree that being any person's parent makes someone notable in their own right, but this is an exception in WP consensus. Ann Dunham article only exists because her son was president. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not the focus here, and Ann was actually noted for more than just being Obama's mother. I also wouldn't go so far as to say there's any real "exception" here. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bill Clinton's father who died three months before his birth was a traveling salesman and not notable for anything other than being the father of a President. While Obama's parents may have had some notability outside of relations, do you really expect we would have those articles if Obama wasn't president? MB298 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to say about whether such articles would be around, but that's irrelevant because—as I stated before—WP:OTHERSTUFF is not the focus here, and whether those people have articles or not isn't a good reason at all to keep this one. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Plenty of stories are written about her in major publications, more than are referenced already. Naturally, people are interested in Trump's parents. I understand WP:OTHERSTUFF, but this seems to be an established consensus due to the interest in the parents of presidents (it also extends to grandparents in some cases). Read the essay WP:OTHERSTUFF: "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." In this case, "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides." Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:INTERESTING isn't a good enough argument either. That and WP:OTHERSTUFF also actually are part of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (though I can understand the confusion), and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions states you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. The WP:INTERESTING section states  personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 05:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:INTERESTING refers to personal interest – i.e., whether I personally find the subject interesting. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about general interest, which is the root of notability. In a nutshell, we can reasonably expect any parent of a US President to attract enough attention to be notable per WP:BASIC. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a stretch for expectations. WP:BASIC also states "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not." The "event" in some cases pertain to a relationship. WP:NOTNEWS states  Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. In other words, people (including parents) may have done something involving others (such as their children), but that doesn't necessarily mean they're notable in their own right. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 05:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This AfD seems to be very important to you. I'm just going to leave this here. And this. Déjà vu? Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Mom of incumbent POTUS is notability. Lay off the hate tea infused with NOTINHERITED extract. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 15:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no "hate tea" involved, and being a president's parent isn't in itself a good enough reason to have an article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 01:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes GNG, no reason to vary from the general practice and consensus here that presidents' parents get their own articles.  There's already more substantive detail in this article than would fit comfortably in the main Donald Trump article (currently 323,261 bytes), or among the brief biographical summaries at Family of Donald Trump, so this separate article is also warranted per WP:SPINOFF. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There isn't exactly a such a "consensus"; being a President's parent is by no means an automatic free pass at warranting an article. Articles should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Some parents warrant articles, and others don't. This is one of those that doesn't since she wasn't truly noted for anything meaningful of her own merit (i.e. outside of family affliations). She honestly doesn't warrant more than a redirect to a Trump family page. See WP:MASK and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 16:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per all the previous "Keep" arguments. Whatever feelings one may have regarding President Trump, such feelings cannot be posthumously reflected against his mother who has become a high-traffic, high-visibility entry upon this article's creation 11 days after the election. Since immigration to the U.S. is one of the key features in the current administration's agenda, all details of the president's family's immigrant past, acquire, in retrospect, highly symbolic importance. As is already evident on the first day of !voting, there will never be a consensus for deletion. In fact, judging by the early comments, there even appears a potential for WP:SNOW keep. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those votes are flawed, and this has nothing to do with personal feelings about the President. Calling her article "high-traffic" is (so far) just exaggerating, though its traffic level is moot regardless. His importance has nothing to do with how important (or unimportant) she is. Notability is actually NOT inherited; him being in office does not enhance parental significance at all, regardless of the administration agenda. Let's also not jump to conclusions so quickly less than 24 hours after an AFD has started. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 17:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - of all the trivial articles on Wikipedia one could nominate as AFD, it seems odd to choose one about the mother of the President of the United States.Larrybob (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are indeed lots of trivial articles, but that's not the focus here per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Being a president's mother isn't in itself enough to warrant an article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 18:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Given President Trump's strong anti-immigration policies, the immigration status of his mother is of immense interest to many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.85.204 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:INTERESTING isn't a very good point. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 20:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per all the above Keep arguments. I wish to note that per WP:OWN no one is in charge of this discussion, so I do not think it is appropriate for anyone to get in the face of every person who has a comment. AFAICT the burden of justification for deletion has utterly failed to have been met. Again, it is NOT good form for anybody to counter each person in knee-jerk fashion. The only argument for deletion is basically that we don't absolutely HAVE to have the article, which is no argument at all. Let's close this, already. It's utter nonsense. --IfYouDoIfYouDon&#39;t (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You've blatantly distorted things; my point for not warranting an article actually was that the subject wasn't noted for anything of her own merit. While I find previously given points to be flawed, there isn't any "ownership" or "getting in the face" going on here. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - she's had sufficient coverage to meet GNG —Мандичка YO 😜 22:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that none if it was based on individual merit. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to apply guidelines as if they are rules to be followed as strictly as possible. Our guidelines allow for exceptions and say they are to interpreted using common sense. Thincat (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The so-called "common sense" isn't actually common, so that is therefore a meaningless term. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps you'd better get consensus for a change to the text at the top of all our guidelines. Or just consider that maybe it is your sense that is a bit uncommon. Thincat (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the diversity of senses that exist, tons of people have senses that others might find uncommon. In short, too many senses exist for there to truly be a "common" one. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 00:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is the best available information for our President's family history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obermayerm (talk • contribs) 00:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a family history site per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 00:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Look up any other president and you will see that their parents also have a page . . .even if it just because they are the parent of a U.S. president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarthaBrownee (talk • contribs) 00:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No; not EVERY presidential parent has (or warrants) an article. Please don't make hyperbolic exaggerations. Besides, that isn't in itself a good reason to keep articles anyway, and whether other subjects have articles or not is irrelevant to this discussion per WP:OTHERSTUFF, which states you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 00:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't need to go back very far. No article for Dorothy Walker Bush (it is a redirect). However, both Bill Clinton's parents have articles and they don't seem to have been otherwise notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would someone please close this discussion? This process has been bludgeoned to death, and the article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted. Brad  v  01:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * KEEP - What is notable in this instance is the means by which Mary Anne came to the USA, which while common and acceptable at the time, is in contrast to her son's current attitudes to those who shaped the nation and continue to do so! That information should remain in the public domain and accessible.Just thinking australia (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Her U.S. entrance isn't really a reason to keep, and her son's policies don't affect her anyway when she died years before he even ran for office. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep If someone is the mother of the man who is currently the most influential man on earth, then she deserves her own article just on the basis of being his mother. Also, it's interesting that Donald Trump disparaged certain groups of immigrants during his campaign and is currently trying to keep Muslim immigrants out of the country, while his own mother was an immigrant, so this article should stay. Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, notability IS NOT inherited from relationships. People warrant articles when actually noted for their own merits. She isn't one of those people. Any meaningful data on her could easily be included on his page, husband Fred Trump's page, or a Trump family article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Snow keep There are enough sources to establish independent notability.LM2000 (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that there are sources talking about her, but they aren't based on her own merits. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know WP:NOTINHERITED is an issue in most cases but coverage of Presidents is intense and it spills over onto everything and everyone around them. I find it hard to believe that Bo (dog) would have an article if he hadn't been adopted by occupants of the White House.LM2000 (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. MB298 (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: 15 votes for keep and 1 vote for delete (nominator). MB298 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep While the result is clear, it is important to emphasize that notability decisions need be based in some objective manner on coverage in reliable and verifiable sources about the subject, a standard that is clearly met here and at all 20 of the articles in the structure Category:Mothers of Presidents of the United States. Arguments for deletion cannot be based on the utterly subjective judgment that "she wasn't really noted for anything meaningful". Alansohn (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be downplayed that subjects need to be noted for their own merits rather than simply who their families are. She isn't noted for her own merits at all. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 15:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability (people) is rather clear in stating that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." and that "All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality." These standards are met here., the requirement that you set demanding "that subjects need to be noted for their own merits rather than simply who their families are" is your own arbitrary standard, without any basis in Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, WP:BIOFAMILY (a section of the page you linked) states that "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". I doubt anyone can name something she was noted for that doesn't have to do with family. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 18:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BIOFAMILY simply states that someone is not notable merely based on the existence of a relationship to another notable. Mary Anne MacLeod Trump merits her own article because she has a strong claim of notability as one of 20 Category:Mothers of Presidents of the United States, and that claim is backed up by reliable and verifiable sources about her. There is nothing at WP:BIOFAMILY (or anywhere else in Notability (people)) that requires that the person must have done something that meets your standard of merit; the acid test standard is that the "person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and that standard is met. Alansohn (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Strong claim" is far from the case since simply being a President's mother isn't enough on its own to warrant an article. "Presumed" also doesn't automatically mean "is". Not everyone in mentioned in sources warrants an article. Her page is little to nothing more than a piece of some MacLeod/Trump family history, and Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a family history site per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. It doesn't exactly aid the understanding of truly significant topics (which would be Fred and Donald). <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 18:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Snow keep YGBSM!  If there weren't already numerous WP:RS, there soon would be.  Not even pretended compliance with WP:Before.  An encyclopedia article on the 45th President's mother should be here.  Another deletionist waste of my time, and the valuable time of a lot of other editors.  We all could have been doing something useful in the encyclopedia.  Just sayin' .... <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Simply being a President's mother isn't at all enough to warrant an article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 18:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can keep bleating it ad infinitum.  You are doing it alone, and you have not a colorable claim to "even pretended compliance with WP:Before."  That you can parrot yourself doesn't make your argument any more persuasive.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You've said a variant of 'president's mom doesn't make her notable' 32 times (but who's counting). We get it.  We disagree.  Let's close this discussion and move on.  Nothing to debate here.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem when looking through sources is none of them show viable evidence she was noted for anything that didn't have to do with family. Any useful data is better placed in a Trump family article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 19:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ADMIN PLEASE CLOSE    As has been stated above, this is bludgeoned, and I don't think enough homies are goign to show up to force the vote from 15-1 keep to something less clear. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, I don't know why I was mentioned here. Sro23 (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.