Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evin Cosby

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. Michig (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evin Cosby

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

No true notability on her own. Falls into category of WP:INHERITED. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fail GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is true that notability is Not WP:INHERITED, it is also true that if Daddy is really, really famous, then, when you open a small store, it gets covered in the press, and when you raise money for charity [1], it gets covered in the press, and when you make a statement supporting Daddy, it's a headline in the Daily Mail here:[2]. You become a sort of celebrity-by-inheritance and there are even whole websites (Black Celebrity Kids) covering people like you [http://www.blackcelebkids.com/2008/08/11/the-big-kids-filebill-cosbys-daughter-opens-new-store/. When there is enough such coverage, you qualify for an article of your own under WP:GNG, even though you have done nothing that would merit a page if Daddy had not been rich and famous.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is exactly why the policy WP:INHERITED exists. Coverage doesn't equate notability and not everything covered by media is encyclopedic or merits a Wikipedia article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. We disagree. [WP:INHERITED]] reads, in the relevant part Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability." I' arguing that even though coverage is driven by who her Daddy was, at a certain point, coverage of, say, an otherwise insignificant small clothing store [3] does indeed make her pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also because of articles like this [4]. Honestly, until today I had no idea how many magazines can be sold by writing articles about Bill Cosby's kids.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I already stated, "Coverage doesn't equate notability and not everything covered by media is encyclopedic or merits a Wikipedia article." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or redirect to Bill Cosby. She's called Bill Cosby's daughter pretty much universally in the press, an obvious tipoff of INHERITED issues. She doesn't qualify as a entrepreneur and didn't get dangled off a balcony as a child. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Your lvote is assumed as the nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a classic case of WP:INHERITED and failure of WP:GNG.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 13:30, 17 March 2015 (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.