Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990–91 Phoenix Suns season
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. Tone 12:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1990–91 Phoenix Suns season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD; Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Specifically, see the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, section 2.9, item 3. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Articles like this have a long established presence on Wikipedia. Even some college teams have them. This one is a GA. Zagalejo^^^ 03:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument referred to as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered one to avoid in deletion discussions as having little value. Would you care to suggest a Wikipedia policy that supports keeping this article? Stifle (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave an example of an article that has been on the main page and has achieved GA status. I think that should be enough evidence that articles like these are accepted. But furthermore, any NBA team season (even going back to the 1940s) is going to pass WP:N. There's no shortage of material to work with. Zagalejo^^^ 19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google searches are not references. Can you please pick out the sources that refer to 1990–91 Phoenix Suns season, rather than making a vague wave and suggesting they might exist? Stifle (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the articles on the first page of that link refer to the 1990-91 season. Every game of the season would have been covered by several sources. Zagalejo^^^ 18:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google searches are not references. Can you please pick out the sources that refer to 1990–91 Phoenix Suns season, rather than making a vague wave and suggesting they might exist? Stifle (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave an example of an article that has been on the main page and has achieved GA status. I think that should be enough evidence that articles like these are accepted. But furthermore, any NBA team season (even going back to the 1940s) is going to pass WP:N. There's no shortage of material to work with. Zagalejo^^^ 19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but Keep, there are sources on this topic, you just need to find them, individual seasons of Major Sports Leagues are notable, better than listing every single game having an article. Secret account 02:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:BURDEN is on those seeking to retain articles to provide sources; please provide them if you think they exist. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument referred to as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered one to avoid in deletion discussions as having little value. Would you care to suggest a Wikipedia policy that supports keeping this article? Stifle (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Secret and Zagalejo. I am not sure why there is any question that adequate sources exist for every NBA team seasons. As for the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, there is not just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but numerous similar articles across multiple projects, indicating a wide-ranging consensus regarding their appropriateness. In any case, even if these articles did not have standalone notability (which they do) it would still be appropriate to merge the sourceable information to the team article, rather than delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's plenty of people saying "there are sources". Now please WP:PROVEIT. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely Keep with the caveat that we do find more sources and add some prose. The specific policy on retaining this article that Stifle requests is Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Article 6.2. Granted, that provision requires more prose, etc., and I agree; however, I disagree that this discussion should be had in the deletion section. Bds69 (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely Keep notable and there are enough sources available to turn this into a decent article—Chris!c/t 20:38, 28 August 2010 (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.