Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Bryant (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Kobe Bryant. My decision is based on the passing mentions used in the article to establish WP:BASIC – trademarking and the fact she was good at sports (resulting in her failing WP:SPORTSBIO, too). Kobe Bryant's wife, Vanessa, should also have an article if the same inclusion levels are being used for Giana Bryant to have an article. If someone is wishing to merge any information from this article I'm happy to put it in your userspace. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Bryant

[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)

Fails WP:N • REDGOLPE (TALK) 11:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • REDGOLPE (TALK) 11:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. - Premeditated (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Kobe Bryant. The subject did not achieve sufficient notability in life to satisfy WP:NBASKETBALL. WP:BLP1E also applies here to the recently deceased. Media interest in Gianna was a consequence of her notable father, not her personal achievements. WWGB (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ONEVENT. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Kobe Bryant. Clear WP:BLP1E case. Edwardx (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Kobe Bryant. Insufficient amount of information - the subject is more well known for Kobe Bryant's and her death, not for her own life. Too few sources that talk about Gianna Bryant's life outside of her death to use to expand the article. Thissecretperson (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is all dependent on her father. Just about every headline begins with "Kobe Bryant's daughter Giannna..." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP you asserted NOTINHERITED, elsewhere, and linked to three articls that included both Gianna and Kobe in their titles: [1], [2], [3].

But, is this a helpful, useful interpretation of NOTINHERITED? I suggest NOTINHERITED should not bar covering individuals who are associated with someone more famous, when they, themselves measure up to our inclusion criteria. It should only bar covering individuals when their press coverage is overwhelming of the "...also present was their associate..."

Consider the British Royal Family. Prince Charles is first in line, and an official list is maintained, of all the other individuals in line to inherit the crown, if only everyone above them on the list all died. No one merits a standalone article merely for being in line to inherit the UK Crown, when there is no other notability factor. But NOTINHERITED should not be interpreted as barring covering members of the Royal Family who have genuine notability factors of their own, even though Elizabeth Windsor is more notable than they are. All but a couple of the top two dozen individuals on that list have stand alone articles, because RS established genuine notability. Most of the next couple of dozen individuals don't have stand alone articles. Only a handful of the next hundred individuals have stand alone article.

I didn't start this article because Gianna was Kobe's daughter. I didn't start articles on his other three daughters. I started it because I thought, through RS coverage, she genuinely measured up to GNG, on her own.

A reference that covers Gianna in some detail, should not be dismissed merely because that article also says something about her father. All that should matter is whether or not coverage of her in the article amounts to a mere passing mention.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. It is very soon after her death, so I am not going to take the bait to argue her notability, other than to say notability is not inherited again. The article is clearly also getting deleted.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if not for her untimely death with her father in the helicopter accident, there would be no reason to have an article about her. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Kobe Bryant, per BLP and WP:ONEEVENT. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) this article has already been deleted once through AfD, and CSD A3'd. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- L293D, you realize the first AFD dates to 2009, to a puff article written in, when she was just a NN toddler? Why do think its deletion is relevant today? Geo Swan (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I realize that it quite some time ago, but I don't think she's gotten much more notable since. Her claim to fame is basically that she's Kobe Bryant's daughter; that's why her name was trademarked, that's why sports media commented about her, and that's also why she I mentioned by name as one of the casualties of the heli accident. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, you use the word "fame" above. According to NPOV we are not supposed to rely on our own opinions, we are supposed to rely on the opinions of reliable sources. Reliable sources thought her viral video showed remarkable skills for someone her age. Reliable sources said Colleges were already trying to recruit her to their basketball teams, even though she hadn't started high school. Reliable sources said her nickname had been trademarked. Her older sister doesn't seem to have been interested in basketball, she wasn't being recruited for college basketball teams, she didn't have her name or nickname trademarked, so no one is suggesting she merits an article, or a trademark.
      No offense, but it your judgement of her "claims to fame"? Why shouldn't we regard them as irrelevant, when RS disagree with you? Geo Swan (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's drop the whole trademark equals notability argument. If I start selling ThatMontrealIP beer coasters at the corner 7-11, Tomorrow, I could apply for and obtain a trademark just as quickly as anyone else. Trademarks depend on a business presence for the name, not on fame. If a few people have recognized the name as being attached to a product, you can get a trademark to protect that recognition.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the reply. I too could start selling merchandise with some phrase on it. I too could apply for a trademark on that phrase.

And you or I would not become one iota more notable for having done so -- unless RS picked it up, and covered it. If I applied for a trademark, and the Financial Post wrote an article entitled "Wikipedia kook applies for a trademark, just to prove a point", that headline, that article, would confer a measure of notability on me. It would not be enough notability to merit a stand-alone article, all by itself. But notability relies on notability arithmetic, where we add up all of an individual's notability factors. Gianna's trademark is not her only notability factor. No one is arguing that her trademark would have been enough to establish she was notable enough for a stand alone article, all by itself. But, in my opinion, it does totally erode all the BLP1E claims that have been advanced here.

So, for that reason, I will not "drop it". Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it because you mentioned it in your keep vote below: "Was the one event her having her nickname trademarked, on 2019-12-30?" I also do not imagine a 13 year old has money for intellectual property lawyers, so the coverage is really abotu her father trademarking his daughter's name, not about the daughter doing something. Anyway, knock yourself out on whatever argument you like. The article will still be deleted, given the concsnsus to do so.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Edwardx, WWGB and L293D stated or implied a BLP1E, or ONEVENT - without, however stating what that event was.

Was the one event her having her nickname trademarked, on 2019-12-30?
Was the one event her having many sports commentators praise her skills when a highlight recording of basketball plays went viral?
Or was it her death?

Y2kcrazyjoker4 did state that her death with Kobe was the one event, and I think they too are improperly overlooking the earlier events.

No offense, but I think to refer to these multiple events as a "one event" is a twisting of BLP1E's original meaning. Wasn't BLP1E intended for individuals whose fame/notoriety/notability is genuinely traced to a single discrete event; people who came from nowhere, had their 15 minutes of fame, and then disappeared? Geo Swan (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the one event is her death. The news coverage she received before is mostly trivial stuff, because she was Kobe Byant's daughter. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, her death. Edwardx (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Edwardx, L293D, my point is you would be using BLP1E improperly if you realized she was known for multiple events. BLP1E is only supposed to be used for individuals known for, as it says one event. It seems to me you aren't, now, disputing she is known for more than one event. Geo Swan (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one event is certainly her death. Having her nickname trademarked and people gushing over a highlight video of a young baller are purely trivial events. The latter has gone on for decades and this instance is no different. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I mean yeah, I wish she could have her own article, and what happened was terrible but of course, the rules of Wikipedia call for something notable about the topic, and the fact that she's skilled at basketball, is taller than her mom, and she had a trademarked name, Mambacita, isn't really that notable. – K-popguardian (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Things are notable when RS write about them. That is basic policy. Are you sure you aren't ignoring the opinions of the RS we are supposed to be paying attention to, and substituting your own personal opinion, as if your opinion were more important than those of the RS who wrote about her trademark, or her exceptional skills? Geo Swan (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dad. He talked about her in interviews sometimes, as seen even on British tv obits, so a short section or para is warranted. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seven ways from Sunday. Yes, her death absolutely is tragic, but WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Death of Kobe Bryant/Kobe Bryant per nom. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:12, 28 January 2020 (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.