Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Bryant (3rd 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 keep‎. While there was no consensus for delete, discussion was mostly split between merge and keep, however, merges as a whole were less emphatic, with tendencies towards keep, especially once discussion started over the actual content to be merged (ie discussion indicated no content should be lost). Goldsztajn (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Bryant

AfDs for this article:

[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)

3rd nomination, first being delete second being redirected but somehow the article is still up. Fails notability and just because she is dead and a daughter of a popular NBA player doesn't mean she warrants a wikipedia article, what makes her sister who is somewhat more notable not have a wikipedia article? Megabyte21 (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Basketball, and United States of America. Megabyte21 (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that the references aleady present in the article add up to independent notability. The fact that her father is notable doesn't take away from the fact that she is as well. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kobe Bryant as the previous AfD did. Notaoffensivename (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable individual. I'm not sure what she would be notable for, other than being the daughter of a famous person that died at age 13.Had she not died, there would be no article, appears to have had a rather routine life for a 13 yr old. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b We really have no idea what would've happened had she not died. I don't think a middle schooler being courted by Connecticut (one of the top basketball programs in the country) means she had a completely routine life. Had she stayed on the same trajectory, she likely would've gotten an article when she was a college basketball star, or when she was drafted into the WNBA. (But of course I can't prove that as it's not what happened.) I do think her untimely death contributes to her notability, but I don't think she was absolutely un-notable before her death MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can't use CRYSTALBALL. She wasn't notable before passing, what may or may have not happened afterwards is not really the issue. Had she not died, the 13 year old would still not get an article at this point in time is my point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just think there's a difference between someone who truly has no notability and then dies in a specific notable way vs someone who does have some bubbling notability and then their death becomes an addition to the notability already budding there.

Here's yahoo sports talking about her basketball skills two years before her death. Here's Slam from 2017. (She died in 2020.) If you do a google search for her name set to the years before she died, there are plenty of hits of people making highlight reels of her or discussing her basketball playing. Now, I know random people on the internet can't establish notability, but I think painting her as having a rather routine life for a 13 year old doesn't seem correct to me.

And we don't need a crystal ball to see she has become notable. Lots has been published about her in reputable secondary sources over a sustained period of time. Coverage continued for awards and shoes and things branded with her name, or in her honor, for years after her death. She's had Nike shoes released in her name (more than once). Here are some various tributes that happened for her, etc.

I mean, I know I'm probably not going to convince you. And we can just agree to disagree. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as I feel your comments seem to be making it out to be MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is a hard decision, but agree merging with Kobe Bryant. She does have some significant coverage that could meet notability guidelines but I think it is mainly covering on her tributes after death. Galaxybeing (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kobe Bryant. While it's true Gianna Bryant was full of promise, most of the sources cited in this article were written after her unfortunate passing. This seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E, so I think it's better to merge the information here with the article on her very notable father.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DesiMoore Sorry, 'cause I'm really not trying to come off too argumentative because whatever is going to happen is going to happen. However, I would argue a couple things

- In BLP1E, it has to hit all 3 criteria including "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Based on how many tributes and how much coverage etc etc., I would argue the event was pretty significant and her role was substantial, meaning she doesn't hit the final criteria to be excluded from being notable in BLP1E

- Also, I would say based on WP:YOUNGATH that she was getting coverage as a middle schooler. Here's ESPNW posting her (yes, on Facebook, but an official ESPN page). yahoo sports Bleacher Report (This is all in a quick google search, I believe there were more that people were linking to when she died.)

So, I think notability was bubbling and her death pushed her into being truly notable, and that a page for her would be warranted as even if one argued she was notable only for her death, since the event was significant and her role in it was well-documented, I still think according to the rule, that would make her eligible for her own page. (Thanks for hearing me out!) MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am confused about the statement in the nomination that "what makes her sister who is somewhat more notable not have a wikipedia article?". If her sister meets our notability guidelines and someone wants to write an article about her, she'll have an article. I don't see what that has to do with Gianna's article. Rlendog (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (and Keep is my opinion) - There was a lot of talk about her potential notability when this version of this article was written. You can see an initial discussion in the treehouse here Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1225#Gianna Bryant notability? and one at Women in Red here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 143#h-Can someone good at 'formalizing' help me with the draft for Gianna Bryant? I'm going to tag some people who were part of that discussion, not because I'm trying to sway anything, but because I'm just notifying them that this discussion is happening again in case they're interested in joining again @Cowboygilbert, @PamD, @Ipigott, @Anachronist. My personal feeling is that there were already some news stories that included her before her death. She was considered an up and coming basketball player. It's not purely her death that made her notable, as she wasn't wholly unknown before it. Also, she has a number of things named solely for her (not shared with Kobe) like awards in her honor or her colorway with Nike. (And to the point that her sister doesn't have a wikipedia article, if she is notable as well, why don't we just make one? What's the name of the sister you're referring to?)

MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged, I'll just say I have no opinion either way, keep or merge is fine with me as long as content isn't lost. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's merged, content will be lost. This whole article can't fit at Kobe Bryant. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep: the brand names, legacy recognition, notable artwork Statue of Kobe and Gianna Bryant all contribute to her notability, such that a reader might well want to learn more about her. The lengthy discussion at Women in Red, linked above, is worth reading, and shows that this is not "somehow the article is still up" but a rewritten article. I was pinged above, and see that in the previous discussion I seem to have moved from an initial stance of "give up" to being supportive of the rewritten article. PamD 22:52, 9 July 2025 (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.