Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryce Maximus James

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I'm closing this as Keep because those advocating Keep are talking about sources establishing notability while those arguing for Delete are basically stating that he is too young to deserve an article which is a form of I don't like it. If I had voted in this discussion instead of closed it, I would have voiced support for a Redirect but as I see it, the consensus today is to Keep this article. Any rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Maximus James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marked for speedy deletion under category A10 as previous article, simply titled Bryce James is a redirect to his father LeBron James.

If the editor that redirected that article, there is no reason IMHO that is worthy or recreating the article under another name. It is simply a way to get around an edit they don’t like. BostonMensa (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce James BostonMensa (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was redirected to LeBron James from 2022 until Today when the redirect was changed. There are people that are very determined. BostonMensa (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is more notable than other local high school athletes because he's being reported on by multiple reliable sources. Sure, not necessarily because of his accomplishments but WP:GNG doesn't care about that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems flimsy argument at best. What I see here is he getting this attention because who is father is and I lost track of how many times people have said notability is not inherited. As far as I am concerned, it is about what he has accomplished, in this case on the basketball court and not the luck of the cosmic drawer on who his father is. I don’t see basketball accomplishments that make him as or more notable than his peers. 23:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC) BostonMensa (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to disagree that he's received media attention. Sorry you don't like WP:BASIC. WP:INHERIT is about subjects that have not received their own coverage but are associated (e.g. by marriage, birth, etc.) with a notable subject. It certainly does not say that someone associated with a notable subject can't be notable. ~Kvng (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The media being interested is meaningless re:being notable. On slow news days or if the News program has 45 seconds to fill, they will cover a double rainbow cross town. Doesn’t mean it is wikiworthy. BostonMensa (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The double rainbow only gets coverage for a brief period of time. If the same double rainbow persisted for years and got coverage over that period, that would make it notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was hoping we'd turn up other sources at this point. Still a !delete, with a smaller !vote for ~redirect if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why the !vote for redirect is smaller than for delete. There is information about him in the LeBron James article and this is a plausible search term. So even if there is reason not to have a standalone article, I see no reason not to have a redirect. Rlendog (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- He looks good to pass WP:GNG, I found this sources [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]Epcc12345 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:31, 15 June 2023 (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.