Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Perception of Jared Kushner


 * 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 delete. I think there's a fairly strong consensus to delete this. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Public Perception of Jared Kushner

 * – ( View AfD View log )

While the title is certainly an improvement over the original, the page is still a glaring and unnecessary WP:CONTENT/WP:POVFORK. The majority of this article's content is (or can be) covered in a clearer way on Jared Kushner KidAd   talk  03:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Appears to be a WP:POVFORK, and the material is already sufficiently covered at .  C Thomas3   (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, and merge with Jared Kushner, per nom. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 04:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete and comment There was a G10 tag on the article originally, but the creator removed it without explanation. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 19:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; clearly unnecessary fork with POV issues. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Surprised this even an article. Delete as per the above reasons. SacredSunflower (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * None of these arguments are even slightly reasonable. Keep the article up and if there are any things that you feel like should be removed/added then do it. Wikipedia is after all a community project and so the more you add into it and the more neutral you make it, the better. But that doesn't mean you should keep on deleting other articles, even when they are completely reasonable to exist. Also, literally tons of other politicians have their "Public Perception" articles and so it's completely rational that there should be for this one too. Marcosoldfox (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, obvious WP:POVFORK that does not need a stand-alone article. I agree with nom that the content makes more sense on Jared Kushner. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding: I've reviewed the article creator's arguments below and still don't agree that there's a need for a fork (or "subarticle") of Jared Kushner. I suggest using the information and sources in this article to improve the primary article. Schazjmd   (talk)  02:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Marcosoldfox (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC) Marcosoldfox (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Bruh, you work for the Army lol. Do what you will. So much for non-biased wikipedia after all. Delete it then. Just thought there could be open discussion on topics relating to what's already widely known out there, but nope; the moment you write about a government official with hundreds of millions of dollars and who purposefully worsened the Health Crisis and led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, then suddenly it's too much. You can't talk about it. All the President's men, am I right? Marcosoldfox (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment for everyone, including reviewer - I closed this as an early delete and User:Liz requested me to reopen. I went to reopen it and realized that User:Marcosoldfox re-created the article. Shortly thereafter, User:Spiderone nominated it for speedy deletion. So.....I guess we'll just see how this rides out. Also, please be WP:CIVIL and stop claiming "bias" etc. I really don't want to see this escalate. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment First of all, and I say this with all due respect, that by the time the first edits were done someone had scheduled it to be deleted with absolutely no stated reason or motive. --Just a speedy deletion for no reason whatsoever, not even an explanation --. And I even messaged the person with all due respect and he didn't even want to explain anything about it. Shortly after posting the article, I got a message from User:Liz who took it seriously and saw that there really was genuine, bulky material for this article and more than justifiably realized there was legitimacy behind it and decided not to delete it, and then advised me to change the name to a more neutral-sounding title. So that's what I did. On her honest advice. Since wikipedia edits are public you can see everything messaged on the User_talk:Liz. You can see all of it, 100%. While at the same time when I tried messaging the user who tried to delete it, he wouldn't even hear my arguments and promptly removed anything I asked him. If you see all the sources and all the information, you'll quickly realize that everything in the article is completely and resolutely backed up, and I'd welcome anyone to edit as much as they find it adequate. Yes, I will be civil with anyone who wants to edit, but the outright partisan attempts to delete an honest work is bound to be outrageous - absurd, even. If anything I think that the article has to be remained and we have to discuss how to improve it, remove and add sections; and that can only be achieved through consensus creation which I'm promptly encouraging right now. I have made it to be as completely non-partisan as possible and nobody would like to have his work destroyed, much less erased, and especially without sound reason or argument. Honestly I just want to leave it to the editors to decide on how to best improve the article but for that it cannot ever be justifiably deleted without sound reason. It's up for the consensus-creation to decide, and I think everyone can overwhelmingly soundly agree on that. Thank you.
 * Merge with Jared Kushner. A lot of the statements in this WP:POVFORK are cited. Truly, WP:RS coverage of him tends to point out a lot of highly unfavourable facts, and WP:NPOV requires neutral editing, not neutral content.  We don't have to censor things that ought to embarrass the subject of a BLP if they're well-cited to a reliable source.  Calling something an WP:ATTACKPAGE when it cites 24 sources including several national newspapers and broadcast news networks is a stretch and speedy isn't appropriate.  But on a purely editorial basis, documentation of the public behaviour of Kushner and journalistic perceptions of it should be confined to Jared Kushner.  Otherwise what is the article on Kushner even about?  FalconK (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, there shouldn't be a merge on it. There nearly is not enough on this topic and there should honestly be an entire Wikipedia series on the topic of Jared - and trust me, you will find plenty of sources for it... many more than there are right now. Not doing it would be comparable to not creating a series entry on George Bush, or Al Gore, etc... There simply is too much conversation on this topic for it not to be considered as immensely pertinent to Wikipedia, put to be created and edited immediately. Second, if there is any thing that seem unfavorable, then I'd gladly welcome the community to edit and put out all the information and facts in the most non-partisan, democratic way possible. But deleting it CANNOT be the answer; it would be outrageous, even. The only way forward is towards the communal editing of the topic and presenting all facts forward together. It's a pretty open topic so I'd happily encourage everyone to discuss and enhance the article's quality as much as possible, and for editors to create a consensus on it. And yeah, pretty much there is an immense amount of networks on this topic that all point out the facts, backing up everything said but even suggesting much more to be said on the topic. It would be great seeing more people working on it and creating a series on the subject; it deserves it more than everything I know of on Wikipedia right now. Thanks and have a great New Year's Eve (we deserve it.)
 * Delete per nom for obvious reasons as stated above by other editors. This is a blatant case of WP:POVFORK. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV fork and merge any usable content into Jared Kushner where much of this material is already mentioned. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment With all due respect, this cannot be fathomably considered as a POVFORK and much less that it be appropriate to a merger. If anything I'd like editors to enhance the article as much as possible as it's a consensus-building article and not a monopoly on the subject. As FalconK said, calling an article that has 24 faithful and verifiable sources a POVFORK is a stretch and deletion isn't appropriate at all. Please edit and add as it is appropriate and let's build consensus over the article -- there is just an abundant array of truthful sources online to back everything up. I'd like arguments to be given and not just accusations of "bias" in a topic as open and widely discussed as this one. Please keep the article up and edit it as appropriate. Open discussion would be much appreciated. Marcosoldfox (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - redundant fork; whether it's a POV fork or just a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK, it's still a redundant fork. By all means, add to the relevant section of Jared Kushner (if there is even that much to add). The article creator understands that this is a community decision. Nothing of value needs to be lost here. Nobody is saying that the information should be censored or deleted, it just doesn't warrant a separate article. "Public perception of ___" would only be justifiable in an extremely rare number of cases and I'm not seeing that here. Part of editing also involves identifying what content is important and what doesn't need to be added. Of course, there are hundreds of articles that mention Kushner but we don't need to add every single inane detail. This is, after all, a general and global encyclopaedia not Trumppedia. Spiderone  23:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree entirely. We have completely separate articles on many persons that are exactly like this one. We have a Public image of George W. Bush, Public image of Bill Clinton etc., all who have been government officials. We even have articles on people who haven't even been president! like Public image of Sarah Palin and many, many others. There are many Forks on all sorts of subjects and especially public images of public servants and to argue otherwise would be only disingenious or a part of cherry-picking. I say it with all due respect, but it'd be outrageous to argue that a person with hundreds (if not thousands!) of different sources backing up everything cannot have its own article, even more on Wikpedia.


 * Consider what is said outright at Content_forking as content policy. It's abundantly clear by any non-partisan that the creation of this article is more than allowed and goes fully with Wikipedia Policy. Consider the rule itself and see:

*'The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies'' a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).'''


 * Clearly it is NOT a POVFORK. The article even goes in absolute agreement with the rules; and then presents different points of view as it is. It's all backed by reputable, verifiable sources. The article even changed to "perception" going outright in accordance with Wikipedia Policy. I want everyone to edit and give more information onto the article as suitable, but deleting it or merging it CANNOT be the answer, not only due to justifiable reasoning but due to Wikipedia Policy itself, which is made all too clear. If there is a consensus on the subject, then let it be. All points of view are given -- there is absolutely no excuse to try deleting it. I welcome everyone and anyone to add onto it as much as possible as to a complete agreement on the subject, and to even have all different POVs onto the subject. The purpose is to create a community-driven article, not a one-sided deletion incursion. To argue otherwise would go over the edge of blatant bias, not to mention against Wikipedian ethos itself... If you'd like to add more to it, create discussion on the Talk Page, and to enhance the article, I more than welcome you to do so; but so far it has been only a constant incursion to delete a completely sound and backed-up article with little to no conversation on the real issue -- which is what is important to me and a community-driven project. Everyone that wants to edit and input more POVs, are even encouraged right now, going in accord with the policy on Acceptable FORK. Thank you. Marcosoldfox (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I suggest that you read the useful essay Don't bludgeon the process. An argument does not become more persuasive by repeating it over and over again. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, I agree. I know what it is. Respectfully, I just wanted to let my argument be well-understood, especially when it's clear that there are many, many other articles out there that are exactly the same as this one as containing "Public Image of..." -- completely reasonable to exist. I excuse myself for any appearance of repetition, but I not only stand by my argument, but strengthen it. As the philosopher Wittgenstein said :"And this value will be the greater the better the thoughts are expressed — the more the nail has been hit on the head." It's always better to make oneself abundantly clear. I appreciate your time on hearing my arguments and I stand on everything I said. Thank you for your time.Marcosoldfox (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Spiderone. It lies somewhere between POVFORK and redundant CONTENTFORK, but either way it's a delete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Spiderone. It's an unneeded fork. --Michael Greiner 19:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. No I think that deleting it would be outrageous and that it must be kept up. Let the editors come in and improve it. So far I have seen not a single reasonable argument against it being kept up but isntead only a barrage of attacks on it. The article must be kept.Marcosoldfox (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you have already been advised against bludgeoning and yet you persist with that poor behavior. Please stop. It is disruptive. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I have my doubts that anyone needs a seperate article on the public perception of them, however Mr. Kushner is clearly not someone for whom this is the case. It take a huge amount of sources to justify splitting up a biography, that is not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2021 (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.