Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Giuliani

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Giuliani

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Despite numerous sources that question his mysterious, sports-related role in the Trump administration, "Public Liaison Assistant in the Office of Public Liaison to the President" is an exceedingly-minor role that does not warrant a Wikipedia page or pass WP:NPOL (the closest notability guideline for political advisors). This person likely has a page because of his famous father, but notability is not inherited. KidAd talk 22:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. He seems irrelevant. Biglittlehugesmall65 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. He clearly meets wp:GNG. Because he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It's totally irrelevant why he received such coverage. And nobody can disagree with the fact that his many articles in reliable sources are independent of him. It's totally irrelevant whether or not he meets NPOL, or whether he is related to a notable person - we have zero reason to even consider those approaches, if the subject meets GNG. 2603:7000:2143:8500:205B:C99C:2B6E:D887 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC) — 2603:7000:2143:8500:205B:C99C:2B6E:D887 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm not an SPA. As perhaps you know. Because I noticed that after I disagreed with you in an unrelated deletion review of another article yesterday, and then edited this article for the first time today (one day later), you within two hours nominated this article for deletion. I'm the same editor (my cable service of its own volition changes my IP address periodically, as is the case w a number of us).

In that deletion review, you likewise asserted that an article that clearly met GNG (as User:SmokeyJoe and user:DGG also believe, if I understand their comments there correctly), should not exist at WP. There, as well, I was of the view expressed here by John Broughton who wrote: "The Wikipedia article cites numerous sources where [the subject] is the subject of an article, not just mentioned in passing .... That's the basis of notability. Notability isn't determined by a Wikipedia editor's opinion that someone occupies a "minor role". I think in this AfD, as in that discussion, you mistakenly believe that even if a subject of an article meets GNG, it should be deleted if it doesn't meet some secondary test, or is not significant in your personal view. But that's not what GNG says.2603:7000:2143:8500:8C2A:84CA:D15B:3FEC (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that IPs should WP:Register if they want to get involved in projectspace discussions, including deletion discussions. I believe the community should make a rule about it and enforce it. Edit mainspace all you like without registering, sure, but in back room discussions, it matters who you are, and IPs lack long term accountability, and also are very hard to recognise and remember. If you have an account, you are violating WP:SOCK by contributing here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not socking. And my understanding was that the community welcomes IPs here. As elsewhere-though I understand that there is some lack of good faith against community standards by some (not you I'm sure). If that is not the case, and there is a community rule of the sort that you think there should be, point me to the wp rule, and I will of course not contribute here. Same with contributing elsewhere - if the community does not want IPs to contribute, just adopt a community rule, and of course every IP will not contribute. As to my comments - I would hope they would not be considered on the basis of who I am, but as to whether they properly consider wp rules. If a nom misunderstands them, and an IP understands them, I would hope the close would focus not on who is registered, but who has been more true to the words and spirit of GNG. --2603:7000:2143:8500:8C2A:84CA:D15B:3FEC (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Not the guys you were talking to.) I have no beef with IP participation, but I think if you have a dynamic IP and want to be recognizable to other editors, it's best to make an account. I also wonder what implications the mandatory IP masking move will have for IP participation, and think it's safest for active IP editors to register in case everything goes haywire. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You pinged me. I don't know who you are or where we may have met before, and it took me a while to work out that you were talking to another mac IP known to yourself, and not talking to yourself. When I see unregistered editors in project discussions, I ask them to register. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The Wikipedia articles cites numerous sources where Andrew Giuliani is the subject of an article, not just mentioned in passing - sources like The Atlantic, The New York Times, NY Daily News, The Wall Street Journal, NY Post, CNBC, and ESPN. That's the basis of notability. Notability isn't determined by a Wikipedia editor's opinion that someone occupies a "minor role". Nor is WP:NOTINHERITED a guideline - it is just advice about what is a bad argument, for those participating in deletion discussions. So it's also irrelevant - no one here is arguing that Andrew Giuliani should have a Wikipedia article because of his father's importance. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References 2 and 4 pass the WP:GNG. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Help? Nom just deleted the subject's actual title in the lede. Without good reason. Subject's title - as reflected by the RS that nom also deleted - is "Special Assistant to the President and Associate Director of the Office of Public Liaison." Nom replaced it with a significantly lesser title, which is not the title the subject now has. I wonder whether it is possible that that is unhelpful. Both for the article, and for this discussion. Can someone help? I'm hesitant to address it myself. Given the history I outlined above. --2603:7000:2143:8500:8C2A:84CA:D15B:3FEC (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not "deleted". That is just editing. If you want to talk about it, do so at Talk:Andrew Giuliani. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, and so on and so forth. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited and his minor office is no where near enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2021 (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.