Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entire NBA career with one team

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 of the debate was no consensus, default to keep. As it is likely uncontroversial, I will also move the article to List of former NBA players who have spent their entire career with one team per Kimchi.sg. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entire NBA career with one team

Delete – I'm sorry, as big an NBA fan I am, I fail to see why this type of information warrants its own article. What happens if, say, Paul Pierce is traded? Then what? Considering not many players last "six or seven years with one team", it can never be that large of a list, therefore, I'm sure this information can be incorporated into the individuals' own articles. --Downwards 03:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: This article is in the works - give it a chance. Right now, it is not close to completion. I hope people can incorporate a list of former NBA players who have spent their entire career with one team. And yes, this list will change, but I and others will be here to update it when it does so I dont see how that is a problem.
  • Unsigned comment by User:152.163.100.74. - Mike Rosoft 20:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, "Considering not many players last "six or seven years with one team", it can never be that large of a list" is exactly a very good reason for keeping. We vote delete for possibly-infinitely big lists. If what you say is correct, it'd be significant enough if one player manages to stay in his team for his entire career. Note that if kept, this should be moved to List of former NBA players who have spent their entire career with one team. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Too speculative and a wee bit of crystal ball gazing. Besides, if you're an "active" player, it's not your entire career - it's your entire career to date. Such contradictory criteria will naturally result in a list of all rookies, a lot of sophomores, and a few players who buck the current long-term trend. A list of former NBA players who have been with one team sounds like a good idea, but it may well end up including everyone who played back in the day when this was a common thing. The same thing would apply to NHL players. Fluit 21:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Rookies, Sophomores, etc. would not apply here. This is a list of players who have played at least eight years with only one team. It is a solid list that will probably always hover around 5 to 15 players. As players such as Garnett, Pierce, etc. change teams, other players (i.e. Devean George or whoever else) will surely replace them on the list.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick81aku (talk • contribs).
• Weak keep, and definitely rename as per Kimchi --Deville (Talk) 03:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - What makes the fact that a certain player spent their whole career with the same team more than just an interesting bit of trivia ? -- Hirudo 03:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Well Hirudo, what is wrong with a trivial fact? Wikipedia is full of trivial facts. I dont understand why something trivial (and factual)would be cause for a strong delete? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick81aku (talk • contribs).
    • Comment - I'm not opposed to having trivial facts in articles about encyclopedic topics, but I am opposed to articles who's only topic is no more than a bit of trivia. That's just my personal opinion of course. -- Hirudo 05:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Just begging to become a Category. --- GWO

• Comment: That's an excellent suggestion. Fluit 18:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete as a list that is unmaintainable and of interest to a severely limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The article is not at all listcruft. It is easily maintainable and there is hardly a "severe" limitation of those interested in the list. Also, im not sure why this harmless, innocent, uncontroversial, and factual list is causing so much grief? If people feel that it is unverifiable, I can easily explain the rather simple process of producing this accurate list. Also, since this is a quality list, why do those in favor of a delete wish to LIMIT Wikipedia by not including this article? - User:Nick81aku

• Keep When this is a complete list it will defiantly be relevant. It could make a good trivia type article. I sure many NBA fans would be interested in this list. Ted87 20:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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.