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 all. No support for deletion. Some were open to merging to a combined NBL awards page while voting a generic "oppose", but it was not clear if that was a primary or secondary choice. Determing if there is consensus for that type of merge can be done outside of this AfD. While guideline WP:Notability says that notability does "not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page" and guideline Wikipedia:Article size also allows for merging of small articles, both leave it up to consensus on a per-case basis.
This article, along with a few others, were collectively splitoff from parent article but does not meet WP:SPINOUT requirements. DA1 (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main article in question is, in its original state, less than 35,000 bytes, far below the approx. 100k recommended for splitting. The article nominated here is roughly 4k bytes. Other articles I am also proposing be deleted are:
The spinouts are unnecessary, unconcise and make readability difficult and tedious by being spread across several short articles. DA1 (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose – These mirror similar NBA award pages, and the NBL is a direct predecessor to the NBA. I completely disagree with the "unconcise" comment; they're independently much more concise than many other sports' award and honors list articles. It's not difficult to navigate, either, considering Category:National Basketball League (United States) awards exists. Furthermore, every single player who appears on any of these nominated articles has direct blue links in their infoboxes to them (see Bobby McDermott for example), and deleting or redirecting these would create hundreds of "false advertising" redirects on those players' articles. I see absolutely no reason to delete or redirect these articles, as they follow exact standards by hundreds of other sports' award list articles. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment – Having independent articles on these awards allows for fuller depth on facts, statistics, and context. Not to mention some of the lists that were in the parent article were factually inaccurate (I cleaned up a slew of mistakes when creating the articles). SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do you plan to expand the articles on Rookie, Coach and MVP? The company has been defunct for decades. If there shall be more content added, then please create the articles when there is extensive content, not before it. DA1 (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this is a "would-be, could-be" argument. It does not actually address the issue at hand: many or most of the spinoffs do not meet WP:SPINOUT, and IMO does not conform to WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:PAGEDECIDE:
If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. It is not uncommon for editors to suggest that articles nominated for deletion instead be merged into a parent article.
There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic [...]
Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City).
I would like others to address these concerns related to existing guidelines, and not only share anecdotal points. DA1 (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SportGuy789. Under no circumstances should these be placed in the NBL parent page. Now if they should be merged they should be in a list of NBL achievements, but I oppose that as well.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UCO2009bluejay: They were already merged in their original state. Do you genuinely think NBL Rookie, NBL MVP and NBL Coach, which are articles of roughly a small table each (between 3000 and 7000 bytes), deserve their own articles? We could have an article for scoring leaders but I see absolutely no reason why readers must click through 3-4 additional articles just to read those 3 tables earlier mentioned. I have dealt with this myself in the past where I wanted to seek some information and ended up going through several articles (and then clicking back and forth, just to compare said information); it was frustrating. This is inconsiderate to readers and only serves to satisfy editor egos (of creating New Articles or maintaining stylistic choices). DA1 (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so the root cause of this assault is you being frustrated in the past and didn't like it. Also funny how you somehow think this pertains to editor ego, which is not at all a veiled insult directly at me considering I'm the creator and pretty much only editor of these. Since you're a mind reader, what am I thinking about doing this coming weekend? SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@SportsGuy789: The NBA being a predecessor to NBL isn't an adequate argument for why the Wikipedia article on NBL should be broken up into sub-topics. They do not meet size requirements to be SPUNOUT whereas the NBA topics obviously do. You're making a stylistic argument there, to maintain consistency between the two completely independent articles. But the fact is: this mass-split makes the topic needlessly difficult to read. They were all in the same article, and that article was not long or difficult to read to warrant a split (Have you seen just how long various Good-rated articles are, especially in Bios and History?). I can see an argument for having an article for scoring leaders but not the others which are absurdly short. DA1 (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're making a stylistic argument, too, considering the SPINOUT is a guideline and not a mandate / requirement. We're not talking about Good-rated articles, we're talking about the threshold of notability in which an award or honor article should exist, and users can always be bold to expand them. Just because these are not as long as the NBA articles does not equate to them being merged into a parent article. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing to keep in mind is that SPINOUT does not preclude shorter articles from being split; it merely says that beyond a certain length, it is suggested to consider splitting them even if there were other stylistic reasons not to do so. SPINOUT leads with [v]ery large articles should be split into logically separate articles, but nowhere does it say that articles that aren't very large can't be split for other reasons. The closest it comes to that is in the size table, where it says that for articles less than 40 kB, [l]ength alone does not justify division. This clearly implies that there may be other valid reasons to split an article of this length. SportsGuy789 has made a stylistic (not length) decision to split them, so we should concentrate our discussion on those stylistic choices and their validity. CThomas3 (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I read WP:SPINOUT as guidance on spinoff articles, while these are lists. Seems to me that these meet Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists which indicates one of the criteria for creation being “Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources.“ These lists seem to satisfy this. Rikster2 (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and this probably should have been a merger discussion, not an AfD, based on the proposal of the nominator. The only reason to delete in this case would be for failing WP:GNG via WP:LISTN for stand-alone lists. While some of the above lists are currently lacking independent sources, based on the age of the topic and the independent sources that are there, they probably exist in print in the cities that had teams sufficiently enough for each to meet LISTN. (Maybe someone with a Newspapers.com subscription can provide more evidence.) However, as each list is quite small, if someone were to suggest merging all of them into a List of NBL awards article, I also see no problem with that using the WP:SIZERULE and it would seem to almost definitely meet GNG as a topic of NBL awards. Yosemiter (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2019 (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.