Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Three (Cleveland Cavaliers)


 * 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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Big Three (Cleveland Cavaliers)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hello, this page is unnecessary, and should just be moved to the Cleveland Cavaliers franchise history. Several reasons for this include how this team was only around for three years, Kevin loves struggled in his role, the team was never recognized as a big three, the team was only able to secure one championship, Team achieve no great success, the team only primarily considered Irving and James as the superstars. Love, lost his superstar reputation in Cleveland. There’s no reason why this page should exist, can someone present arguments to keep it? Jamesjunky (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't know about this one; merging probably makes the most sense but I would like to see other opinions. Sure, there are sources calling them a "Big 3" but "Big 3" seems to be thrown out for any three good players on a team. Look here, they even consider the team with Dwayne Wade as the "New Big 3"  so is it really a notable standalone subject or an overused title? Individual success, championships, and "star" status are irrelevant, but the nom isn't wrong for starting this discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. It gets tossed out a few times, but it hasn't gotten much traction because, as the nominator points out, there really aren't three. Also delete Big Three (Oklahoma City Thunder). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete (See below). This is a very well-sourced, informed article, and is tricky to opine on due to its overall fine quality. However, I elect to vote for delete for several reasons:
 * 1) As mentioned before, phrases such as "Big 3" or "Big Three" are significantly overused, and can apply to any three better-than-average players on a sports team.
 * 2) The article is meant to interpret recent Cavaliers franchise history in a way that unfairly bolsters these three men above the contributions of other team members, but fails to do so, because...
 * 3) the article's text, instead of detailing the three individually, or what the trio did together, proceeds to detail what the whole Cavaliers team did each season, especially when against the Warriors.
 * 4) If this article were to be kept, that could set a precedent for other pages to be created with the purpose of emblazoning three above-average players on the same "successful enough" team.


 * The Cavaliers team featuring these three men went to the NBA finals all three times, winning once. However, the three were only briefly together and were probably only referred to as the "Big Three" in passing. Therefore, I do not believe the issue is with notability, but with interpretation. The information in this article can be allocated to pre-existing pages. The bar, I believe, should be higher for NBA trios to have their own page (good example: Big Three (San Antonio Spurs), featuring Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, and Tony Parker). While this Cavaliers trio had accomplishments, this page would be more relevant if the three stayed together for much longer and/or made possibly unparalleled NBA history with each other.


 * I also agree with Clarityfiend that the page for the Oklahoma City Thunder Big 3 should be tossed. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Question What are you thoughts on what a good minimum bar would be?  For example, would Big Three (Miami Heat) be OK becuase they won one extra championship (2) and played one more season together (4)? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a very good question. In my opinion, the Miami Heat Big 3 page can be kept, because of their 4-of-4 finals appearances, and also because of the media attention surrounding them when LeBron joined the Heat. When LeBron re-joined the Cavaliers, that event had no equivalent to The Decision.
 * As for some minimum qualifications, I would propose that whatever trio in question be together over a long-term period, such as at least five or six years (with Heat exception, due to media attention and 100% Finals appearances; also, four seasons is a better sample size than three and has more long-term qualities). The trios should have >/=90% winning/playoff seasons, and frequent appearances in NBA finals or conference finals (let's say >/=66.7%).
 * While these minimum qualifications are by no means final, and can be brought to consensus if necessary, I think it's a start. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sources There are a number of sources that refer to the as "Big Three" and discuss the grouping:
 * While it can be argued that it's a non-original term that is over used in NBA coverage to apply to three stars of a team, there's little doubt the "Big Three" was often applied to Cleveland's trio of James, Love, and Irving.—Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While it can be argued that it's a non-original term that is over used in NBA coverage to apply to three stars of a team, there's little doubt the "Big Three" was often applied to Cleveland's trio of James, Love, and Irving.—Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While it can be argued that it's a non-original term that is over used in NBA coverage to apply to three stars of a team, there's little doubt the "Big Three" was often applied to Cleveland's trio of James, Love, and Irving.—Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. Most relevant in rebuttal to the nomination, WP:N states that "notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity."  This Cleveland grouping was covered extensively over a sustained period, even if Big Three is a cliché for star NBA trios or if there are better threesomes in league history. I'm not keen on the current format and content of the article, but that is WP:SURMOUNTABLE and independent of its notability.—Bagumba (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By this trash logic we can apply that to OKC’s current team, the current Timberwolves team, and current the Celtics team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.2.178.120 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, but... I stand by my expressed concerns when I initially voted delete. However, after giving the article and the situation considerable thought, as well as factoring Bagumba's collection of sources affirming that Love, LeBron, and Irving are a "Big 3", I have changed my opinion on whether or not to keep the article. After all, the trio's 3-of-3 finals appearances are significant.


 * With that established, I propose, in order to further justify the existence of this article, that all three members of the trio have their own brief entries on the page, detailing info such as their stats and how they arrived onto the Cavaliers roster. This would be in a style similar to the equivalent San Antonio Spurs page (the page has three content concern tags at its head, dated from August 2016, but that's another ball of wax).


 * In conclusion, if and when future "Big 3" pages are made, they should be made with discretion and respect. I would suggest that such pages be made in retrospect once the trio(s) are disestablished, or when the trios are already well-accomplished after, say, 5+ seasons. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete* This page makes no sense. LeBron James carried the team to a finals with Kyrie Irvin in 2015, in 2016 Love was benched because of how badly he played, and in 2017 Love played well. This is a terrible overexaggeration. The 2013 Lakers were a Big Three as well who got massive media coverage. This is a dangerous precedent to set because the term Big 3 will lose it's value. The Spurs trio had over a decade of coverage and legacy while the 2012 Heat were marketed as a Big 3 to start with. What we have here is Irving, James, and a solid role player in Kevin Love. This does not deserve a Wikipedia page, it deserves to be in the Cav's franchise history. 35.1.103.105 (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST regarding the Lakers is not a reason to delete this. If a better name than "Big Three" materializes in the future, an WP:RM can be initiated. While you personally might not think much of Kevin Love, the fact is that he is a 5-time NBA All-Star, hardly the "role player" that you suggest.—Bagumba (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * IP address note Both 35.1.103.105 and 35.2.178.120 (above) are from the University of Michigan, and likely the same person.—Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. overly specific  and better dealt with in more general articles about the team DGG ( talk ) 09:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.221.197 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to closer While the previous IPs have been from the University of Michigan, this IP is from Ann Arbor, Michigan, when the school is based. This one also has the same quirk as 35.1.103.105 of placing an asterisk after their "delete" vote.  Likely another sock and should be discounted.—Bagumba (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strike all IP votes as socks 35.1.103.105, 35.2.178.120, and 50.241.221.197 are suspected WP:SOCKs of the nominator . Before this AfD, many IPs had tagged this page for AfD, but failed to complete the process by creating the AfD page per WP:AFDHOWTO (IPs can't create any pages and must leave a request). 50.241.221.197 had tried to prod and twice tagged for Afd  the article a few months ago. Curiously, another University of Michigan IP had tagged the article for AfD too). Finally, the AfD nominator is a new account whose first edit was to nominate this AfD. Jamesjunky can also be seen collaborating with 50.241.221.197 to remove the same content from Jackson Citizen Patriot (see its history).—Bagumba (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I notice that there is no active sock investigation at this time. If you have sockpuppeting concerns about the account and IPs, feel free to open an investigation here. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I warned the user already, in case they were not aware of policy. An SPI can be opened if behavior persists. I chose to put the details here for now, as the details are relevant to the AfD closure and SPIs are often backlogged.—Bagumba (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I think we need to look beyond the GNG for articles like this. There are many groupings of athletes that can be shown to have received coverage in the media, but that doesn't mean that all of those groups need their own Wikipedia pages. There's nothing in the current article that makes me understand why this particular Big Three is interesting or unique. The bulk of the article is generic game recaps that can be presented elsewhere. I could support an article on Miami's Big 3, given the hype and controversy surrounding their founding. I could support on article on Detroit's "Bad Boys", given that they had a distinctive style of play. But the Cleveland Big 3? How much more can you really say that you can't say somewhere else? I realize that none of this is grounded in specific guidelines or policies, but I really don't think we should be encouraging articles like this. I'm not crazy about the Spurs article, either. That one is little more than game recaps and selective use of statistics. Zagal e jo^^^ 02:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - It feels like we need to come up with a standard for what constitutes a notable "big three" in basketball - it is a very common sportswriter device. I kind of agree with Zagalejo that even if mentioned in the press I have a question if it is actually notable in this case or if it was just a hype mechanism. Rikster2 (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * At a minimum at Articles for deletion/Big Three (Oklahoma City Thunder), it was unanimous that Big Threes that haven't been together even a season should not generally have their own article. Additionally, I think if sources talk a lot about the three players as a group, and not just use the hype of using the name in passing, there is merit to it being considered notable.—Bagumba (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. A couple, or even a lot, of references in the sports media don't make for notability and an independent article. There's so many of those threes, and before you know we'll have all of them, with not just teams in parentheses but also years. I was thinking Twin Towers (San Antonio Spurs) might be a better case, but that one also is already bad enough--half the article is a summary of the biographies of Duncan and Robinson, and the rest is a recap of the Spurs during their careers, as if it only takes the two of them. I have no doubt that articles can be written on sets of players in a team because of their interactions, tensions, successes--one thinks of Kobe and Shaq, and I am somewhat surprised that Stockton to Malone is a red link: those sets are verifiably notable, more notable than this one, which was only together for a few years anyway. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to argue here that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST so this should be deleted too, or that it is WP:UGLY and should not be left to improve? Or that it meets GNG but WP:IAR because this isn't encyclopedic? Do you think groups of players can be Wikipedia-notable even if they are not all Hall of Famers like Stockton–Malone or Shaq–Kobe? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Bagumba, I am giving arguments for why I think this is not notable. You can throw a bunch of acronyms at the wall like spaghetti to see what sticks, but that does not matter much to me. I am saying "delete because these run of the mill mentions don't establish notability". Except that I am trying to do it in more words, as a service to the reader. I didn't use "Hall of Fame" as an argument, but thank you for putting words in my mouth. But OK, if you want to know why the Stockton-Malone connection is Wikipedia-worthy, in my opinion:, , , and this. You can't do that for this set of players. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable made up concept. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2018 (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.