Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIBA Basketball World Cup Top Scorer


 * 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 no consensus. Lourdes  17:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

FIBA Basketball World Cup Top Scorer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:LISTN as independent reliable sources do not discuss this group. This is all sourced to stats listings from the tournament organizer. Moreover, no evidence this is an "honor" that is "bestowed" as article claims. No ceremony, no award, no trophy. List creator also created similar, recently deleted list at Articles for deletion/FIBA Intercontinental Cup Decisive Game Top Scorer. If we allow this minimal level of inclusion, FIBA stats site also boasts "key figures" like the shortest player at each event —Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep (Article author) article includes stats from numerous independent sources, not just the tournament organizer. The top scorer of the tournament is noted in all tournaments and the tournament history, per the official site of the world basketball federation. Does not fail the list guideline either, as it does have independent sources listing the grouping. All of this is actually linked as sources in the article. The leading scorer of the world basketball cup of FIBA is not a trivial minimal inclusion like shortest player at a tournament, as is argued in the reason for deletion.Bluesangrel (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your recent edits are a case of WP:BOMBARDMENT and WP:CITEOVERKILL. It looks like you dumped every hit from Google, even if you (presumably) couldn't read the language or know if it's acually a reliable source.  Which ones are reliable, independent, and talk about the grouping?—Bagumba (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, and I understand that you are an admin with good knowledge of site rules, but you are being a bit unreasonable in my opinion. You say it has only official sources from the league, then dismiss when verifiable independent English sources are added, you simply on personal opinion dismiss them. You say the article is something trivial like shortest player at a tournament, when it is the lead scorer of the biggest FIBA tournament. You claim the article lacks sufficient sources, then when they are added to precisely source everything, officially, independently and with English sources, you claim the article as bombarded. You claim there is no award, even though two sources from FIBA's official website list that each tournament's top scorer is noted, in list form, in a group. You claim there are no independent sources listing the group...this after I put multiple independent sources in the article which in fact list these groupings exactly as they are edited in the article. In both English and Spanish, and independent, from multiple sources listing the groupings. This meets the definition of Wikipedia under list that you claim it does not.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad, Bagumba, I had two tabs open and one of them was the wrong discussion, and I edited on wrong comments. My mistake. I forget how to do the thign where you cross the comments out.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've collapsed your comment since there weren't any replies. If you want some things kept you can just move them outside of this section. For future reference, you can cross comments out with surrounding the text, and collapse them with cot on top and cob below. There's a quick reference for formatting at H:CS. You can also use an editor like the visual editor by changing it in your prefernces (personally I use WikiEd, which has a handy toolbar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha3031 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete per nom. Not seeing this particular list getting any coverage from WP:RS. Rikster2 (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is listed as these lists in groups in numerous independent sources, as well as from FIBA, and several such source lists are in the article, including from two of the biggest international sports databases. Is this simply your opinion these are unreliable sources, even though they exactly match the info at FIBA's website? Two of the biggest basketball databases list these groupings, as does one of the biggest basketball sports sites in Spain. Again, all sourced in the article. Also a publication of a big sports site in Spain, and also a media magazine. Did you simply not look at the sources? If that is the case, I will take the time to list them all here, showing these exact groupings from FIBA and several independent sports websites and media publication.Bluesangrel (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Here are some sources on just with these specific groupings, matching official FIBA site, and also from a large sports media and a magazine as well.
 * --> lists the top scorers by points
 * --> official FIBA site showing these grouping and that indeed is matched to other independent sources
 * --> official website of FIBA listing that each tournament officially notes the top scorer and listed in same exact group as the article
 * --> shows the same exact groupings in large independt sports media, including the magazine where it is published in these groups exactly as in the article - on page 39, it lists exactly that these top scorers are noted in the tournament's history and in exact grouping as in the article.
 * --> again, lists this same grouping as in the article, and that yes, they are listed that way and noted.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are my comments on the sources you mentioned above: 1) Beko is an appliance and electronics company, and not a reliable source on basketball. Moreover, they are not independent, as they were a FIBA "presenting partner" in 2014 (see bottom of this FIBA page), 2) FIBA's own website is not independent, 3) FIBA's own website is not independent, 4) The reference is a stats listing; it doesn't have any prose to discuss the grouping.  Wikipedia does not exist to duplicate an almanac. 5) Another pure stats listing without prose.—Bagumba (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comments are showing a personal bias against site guideline Neutral point of view and also are very clearly laid out as an action and example of Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia which shouldn't a surprise, as you state have 476 articles deleted off Wikipedia here at your user talk page User:Bagumba and used an article you also got deleted as a justification for why this article should be deleted, which isn't a valid reason for an AFD. Also, this probably needs to be stated here in proper context Articles for deletion --> your arguments and reasons for this article to be deleted do not meet the proper guidelines per the site's own stated info on article deletion. To be trying to get an article deleted, and not following those guidelines, and in fact going against them (claiming no sources and group listings sources when there are both) is a clear evidence that you are engaging in deletionism and are trying get an article deleted out of a personal feeling of not wanting it on the site, despite that the article does not fail the very guidelines you claim it does.
 * 1. Beko is an independent source. If it is not an independent source, then no US sports media in existence is an independent source, using the same criteria you are using here. No articles here using a US sports media as a source should be counted as having a valid source then. Beko is an independent source, and you simply wrongly assert on your own opinion that it isn't, and try to pass use that as justification for article deletion...
 * 4. The reference is an independent and reliable and verifiable source material of a large sports media, which confirms their is such a distinction noted (something you dispute as a justification to delete the article), and it lists the grouping (something you keep asserting the article does not have and therefore should be deleted), to which you claim there is no such independent source listing the grouping - these are obvious deletionist tactics, to first claim there is no such source, and then when it is provided in the discussion, to simply argue that it's not valid, even though it is.Bluesangrel (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ... you state have 476 articles deleted ...: Technically, it's from Adminstats. At any rate, those are actual deletions from speedy deletion or where there was consensus in AfDs to delete, etc. (see Administrators' guide/Deleting) Those are not my votes. On the subject of votes, your AfD record shows that you did not match consensus in 54.5% of your votes.—Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comments are showing a personal bias ...: Or maybe I just believe the article doesn't meet WP:LISTN. WP:AGF. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Beko isn't just an appliance and electronics company. It's one of, and perhaps the, largest sports advertising companies in Europe, akin to something like Nike in USA, in that regard. And yes, it is independent for a source guideline, just in the same exact way as something like ESPN, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc. covers US sports, and wouldn't be blocked as a source for Wikipedia, simply because they cover, broadcast, advertise whatever said sport.Bluesangrel (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are comparing a "sport advertising" company or Nike to news outlets? OK.—Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The "honor" and "bestowed" claim mentioned in the nomination has since been removed from the lead. Still, no evidence that WP:LISTN is met by independent sources discussing this as a notable grouping.—Bagumba (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. In addition, WP:NOTSTATS. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The article does not fail site guidelines "per nomination", as explained thoroughly already before your response. Also, the article does not fail WP:NOTSTATS - as it contains this prose within the article --->

''Álvaro Salvadores, of Spain, was the leading scorer by points per game, of the first FIBA World Cup (then called the FIBA World Championship), the 1950 FIBA World Championship, which was held in Argentina. Chile's Rufino Bernedo, led that same tournament in total points scored, with 86.''

''Nikos Galis of Greece, led the 1986 FIBA World Championship in scoring. Oscar Schmidt of Brazil, led the 1990 FIBA World Championship in scoring. Australia's Andrew Gaze, was the leading scorer of the 1994 FIBA World Championship. Spain's Alberto Herreros, was the leading scorer of the 1998 FIBA World Championship. Germany's Dirk Nowitzki, led the 2002 edition in scoring. China's Yao Ming, led the 2006 edition in scoring. Argentina's Luis Scola, led the 2010 edition in scoring.''

''The most recent World Basketball Cup leading scorer was J. J. Barea, of Puerto Rico, who led the 2014 FIBA World Cup in scoring. To date, no player has been the World Basketball Cup's leading scorer by points per game in more than one competition. However, Dirk Nowitzki led the tournament in total points scored twice, in the 2002 and 2006 competitions.''

It's very easy to simply say an article fails or violates some site guideline, even if it does not, which is also a very classic and obvious deletionist tactic.Bluesangrel (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I added more prose to the body of the article. It's not just some random listing of numbers. There is a body in the article with detailed prose about the subject matter.Bluesangrel (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTN can be met by presenting independent sources here that discuss the grouping in prose. Not almanac-like stats listings. This is unrelated to the prose in this article.  Either you did not understand, or your edits are further Masking the lack of notability.—Bagumba (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a source to the article and this discussion with tons of prose and the group listing in question, at the bottom of the discussion, because it's getting hard to read the middle of the discussion. Also again, what you are using here as a reason to delete this article would also then call for the NBA articles on scoring leaders to also be deleted. They simply list a bunch of scoring leaders, and when held to the same standards and arguments you are using, they would probably be deleted - yet I see no AFD tags on those NBA articles. Take List of National Basketball Association career scoring leaders for example - just a bunch of stats in a list, with no prose and not a single source that would at all satisfy the demands you are making here. Not a single independent reliable source listing with the group being discussed and with prose within it, which is the standard you keep using here for this article over and over and over. So the only difference is this article isn't based in a USA sports competition, something that's not supposed to matter for the site, as that's a personal bias among some that might be editing and against the whole general concept of Neutral point of view. It shouldn't make an article for NBA scoring leaders OK, just because it's a United States competition, and make an article for leading scorers of a worldwide FIBA basketball competition not worthy of a site article, because some editors might feel like something outside of USA centered events is unimportant. Also, an article does not have to meet whatever any certain editor claims as their own personal standard of acceptance for it to not be deleted, simply adhering to site policy is what is actually supposed to be the case, not any single editor's idea of noteworthy and valid source - because then no article would be good enough for inclusion. And an actual consensus isn't reached by someone using deletionist talking points and tactics over and over again to make a discussion appear as it is proving a justification for deletion. Articles for deletion - nothing about an article having to meet every single whim of an editor that thinks the article simply shouldn't on the site. It just states what it states. Two completely different things from personal opinions on what should or should not be an article. Such tactics being used to push for deletion of articles through AFD process is deletionist personal point of view. Looking at NBA articles as totally justified with just a list, no prose and no such sources as talked about here as being fine, but a world basketball article as being something that needs to be deleted, even if it has prose and such sources as well, is leading to Coverage of topics and systemic bias - which should be avoided, because this isn't supposed to just be a USA centered project, and something like a worldwide basketball event shouldn't even really be held to such, because that's a tournament in which 80 countries compete to qualify and 32 countries compete at the actual final round, which in reality makes it more culturally significant outside the USA than the NBA.Bluesangrel (talk)
 * Independent reliable source with the grouping in question and contained within prose - | Mundobasket 2010 which again is a standard that similar NBA articles at Wikipedia are definitely not being held to.Bluesangrel (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article current contains this prose in the article's body:

''Álvaro Salvadores, of Spain, was the leading scorer by points per game, of the first FIBA World Cup (then called the FIBA World Championship), the 1950 FIBA World Championship, which was held in Argentina. Chile's Rufino Bernedo, led that same tournament in total points scored, with 86. At the 1954 event, it was Uruguay's Oscar Moglia, that led in scoring, with an average of 18.7 points per game.''

''He was followed in 1959 by James T. L. Chen, of the Republic of China (Taiwan), who led in points per game, at 20.1, and Team USA's Jerry Vayda, who was first in total points scored, with 162. In 1963, the lead scorer was Peru's Ricardo Duarte, who had an average of 23.1 points per game. Poland's Mieczysław Łopatka, led in scoring average in 1967, at 19.7 points per game, while his teammate, Bohdan Likszo, led in total points scored, at 180.''

''They were followed by South Korea's Shin Dong-pa, who averaged 32.6 points per game in 1970. Mexico's Arturo Guerrero, who averaged 27.0 points per game in 1974, was that competition's leader in scoring average, while Wayne Brabender of Spain, led in total points scored, with 207. At the next competition, in 1978, it was Kamil Brabenec of Czechoslovakia, that was the leader in scoring average, at 26.9 points per game, while Yugoslavia's Dražen Dalipagić led the same competition in total points scored, with 200.''

''Rolando Frazer of Panama, was first in scoring average at the 1982 FIBA World Championship, in which he averaged 24.4 points per game, while Yugoslavia's Dragan Kićanović, was first in total points scored, with 190 points. Nikos Galis of Greece, led the 1986 FIBA World Championship in scoring. After Galis, Oscar Schmidt of Brazil, led the 1990 FIBA World Championship in scoring.''

''Schmidt was followed by Australia's Andrew Gaze, who was the leading scorer of the 1994 FIBA World Championship. After Gaze, it was Spain's Alberto Herreros, who was the leading scorer of the 1998 FIBA World Championship. Herreros was followed by Germany's Dirk Nowitzki, who led the 2002 edition in scoring.''

''China's Yao Ming, led the 2006 edition in scoring average, as he averaged 25.3 points per game, while Dirk Nowitzki of Germany was first in total points scored, with 209 points. Argentina's Luis Scola, led the 2010 edition in scoring.J. J. Barea of Puerto Rico, led the 2014 FIBA World Cup in points per game, with a scoring average of 22.0 points per game. At the same event, Pau Gasol of Spain was the leader in total points scored, with 140 points.''

''To date, no player has been the World Basketball Cup's leading scorer by points per game in more than one competition. However, Dirk Nowitzki led the tournament in total points scored twice, in the 2002 and 2006 competitions.'' it's not even a pertinent argument being used here for deletion. Also with independent and reliable inline citations, and yes again, the article does have independent sources with the group listing, even though it keeps being claimed it doesn't.Bluesangrel (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, I should have seen this right away, but I didn't want to assume Bagumba was just being a deletionist. I should have seen it right away, when he tagged the artice with an AFD, claiming it was something trivial and akin to an article about the shortest player at an event, and that "we" (deletionists) shouldn't allow something like that here at Wikipedia because such a "minimal level of inclusion" would lead to "shortest player at an event" getting an article. No it wouldn't. And obviously this is just a deletionism tactic by a deltionist (Bagumba), that simply personally wants to get rid of the article. The article does have independent verifiable sources, and does have the grouping listed by independent verifiable sources (more than one). To which Bagumba simply claims it does not. And even with them provided in both the article and this discussion, Bagumba simply claims there are none. That is a clear 100% classic deletionist tactic. The article does not fail WP:LISTN as Baguma claims it does. It has independent verifiable sources (multiple), and it has the same with the specific groupings listed, which he simply asserts that it does not (without any proof), meaning his deletion discussion arguments here also fail Wikipedia burden of proof. In addition, this seems to very clearly be an example of USA centric bias. Why are the articles of NCAA lead scorers and NBA lead scorers not tagged with deletion discussions? Because they are American basketball events. If this article was titled "American Basketball League Top Scorer", it wouldn't have been tagged. Such bias, that Bagumba wants this article deleted, because they think it is unimportant and shouldn't be on the site, despite similar articles being on the site with an American point of view, is a bias of American centrism. All this in general, should be unacceptable reasoning for an article's deletion per this Neutral point of view - as the arguments for deleting this article clearly fall under Bagumba's own opinions and ignore independent sources. List of National Basketball Association career scoring leaders and List of National Basketball Association career playoff scoring leaders should also be deleted, using the same criteria and arguments Bagumba is using here in this delete discussion. Those articles would fail the same list rules and source rules, etc., based on Bagumba's arguments and claims in this discussion. However, no deletion tag has been placed on those articles, because they are about a basketball competition that is a USA based event.Bluesangrel (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is another example of an independent source from a reliable sports media, which includes the grouping in question, and which also includes pages of continuous prose (which addresses another argument which was used here to try to invalidate the listed sources and justify deletion of the article) ---> Mundobasket 2010.Bluesangrel (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not another example. It's the same publisher and almanac-style list as in the Guía BasketMe Spanish source [4] that you presented already above.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a listing with the group, that's contained with prose, that is independent and reliable, and that comes from a major media source. It's also not an almanac either - it's a sports magazine. Meets site criteria, and all criteria you keep laying out. Also, again, Wikipedia has several NBA articles for leading scorers, that don't have prose in the article, and don't have any such source as you are demanding (no such grouping in question with prose that is independent and not just an almanac like listing), and again there are no AFD tags on those pages.Bluesangrel (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * List of National Basketball Association career playoff scoring leaders and Basketball-Reference.com enumeration of NBA career playoff leaders in points scored / List of National Basketball Association career scoring leaders and Basketball-Reference.com enumeration of NBA career leaders in points scored those clearly would fail the same criteria and standards you are laying out here as justification for deletion of this article. Seems again to be a v ery clear case of deletionism and American centric POV.Bluesangrel (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the tables, at least, are nice to have somewhere, but they're already listed at FIBA Basketball World Cup records. Zagal e jo^^^ 03:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, even if one went on a limb and said this was notable, WP:N says: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. WP:PRESERVE is met by your comment. (Incidentally, WP:DUE drives article content, not "nice".) Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, I think "top scorer" is a significant statistic, and something of broad interest. The tables do contribute to a more well-rounded, historical overview of this tournament. And I actually did learn some things from looking at this information! (For example, it's interesting to see that a Peruvian player was once the top scorer. I never knew that Peru used to compete at this level of basketball.) The prose content in FIBA Basketball World Cup Top Scorer doesn't add much, but the tables themselves are worth keeping somewhere, in some form. Zagal e jo^^^ 13:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify one of the deletion arguments here, the editor which proposes deletion of the article states in the nomination that -
 * If we allow this minimal level of inclusion, FIBA stats site also boasts "key figures" like the shortest player at each event
 * Yet Wikipedia has these two articles - List of shortest players in National Basketball Association history and List of tallest players in National Basketball Association history - neither of which have any deletion tags on them. So again, a very clear example of basing what is or isn't notable for Wikipedia, on a the world revolves around what happens in the USA view, rather on what is actually notable or not (which is site policy). With the argument for deletion clearly then being able to be morphed into an argument that any such article that is for a USA sports competition is notable, and any such article for a non USA sports competition isn't notable. While using a double standard and one that isn't even outlined by site policy for sources, while ignoring that same standard would get plenty of USA centric sports articles deleted that are evidently considered notable by the editor nominating for deletion (as no deletion tags still on such articles). This sort of reasoning for article deletion could lead to mass deletions of non USA centered sports articles from the project, which would match basic principles of site deletionism in general. What is to stop the same editor from moving right to the next such sports article that isn't a USA based competition and using this article (if it is deleted) as a justification for why that next article should be deleted? Citing and arguing that site discussions have deemed such non USA sports articles are not notable? There is nothing at all to stop the same editor from doing exactly that. Site policy is against using such tactics as that for deletion of articles, yet editors that have a deletionist viewpoint of the site do it all the time. And again....no deletion tags on NBA or NCAA basketball leading scorers articles, or even on the tallest and shortest players articles, which is used as a basic premise of deletion of the article.Bluesangrel (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not at all going out on a limb to say this is notable. It's the leading scorer of the biggest basketball competition in the world, which gets more TV viewers and has more attendance than the Olympics basketball, has 80 countries competing to qualify for it, and has 32 countries competing directly in it. It's the leading scorer of the main competition organized by the world governing body of the sport, FIBA. This is without any question considered a notable subject. Your personal assertion that it isn't notable, is an example of a USA centric perspective, and basing what should or should not be included into Wikipedia as an article on USA centrism, rather than what is actually a notable subject worldwide, and what isn't. This is a subject with a worldwide interest. While there are no deletion tags on various articles about leading scorers of NCAA and NBA basketball competitions, which are just for the USA (NCAA basketball), and just for the USA and Toronto (NBA). And again, those articles wouldn't meet the criteria for inclusion in this site that you are applying for this FIBA related article. Wikipedia isn't a USA centered project - and isn't supposed to be that, yet your description of this subject not being notable is clearly demonstrating a USA centric POV of what articles should be on the site. The leading scorer of the biggest and most important international basketball competition in the world, and in the history of the sport of basketball is notable, and just because it isn't a USA organized competition does not mean it should not have inclusion at Wikipedia. That also shouldn't be a tactic used for deletionist ideals to be achieved for elimination of non USA based sports articles from the project. A wider discussion in general at the site over non USA sports articles should be had if this article is deleted. Because if these types of non USA sports articles are deleted one by one, eventually there will be nothing to prevent the whole argument that non USA sports articles are not notable, which it feels like that is the basic premise here. That feels much more the likely scenario of such USA bias perspective on these types of articles by many times, over the idea of "shortest player at a tournament" having an article. Which itself is quite ironic, when you consider that the site has articles for shortest and tallest NBA players, and they also do not have any deletion tags on them. This is an obvious USA centric bias in judging what is or isn't pertinent for Wikipedia. List of shortest players in National Basketball Association history and List of tallest players in National Basketball Association history - no deletion tags, and yet the idea of such "trivial" articles as "shortest player at a tournament" is used to argue this notable subject (leading scorer) should be deleted, even though again, numerous such USA centric articles exist for NCAA and NBA.Bluesangrel (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Wall of text of WP:OTHERSTUFF and whataboutism by article creator. The alleged NBA/USA bias is pure posturing and hypocritical. For the record, Blueangrel was the only keep !vote at Articles for deletion/List of National Basketball Association single-postseason series scoring leaders, an NBA list which I nominated for deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)/
 * Comment. I'm confused. The FIBA Basketball World Cup is a notable tournament with its own WP-article.  Surely a reader would find it useful to know the top scorer in each FIBA Basketball World Cup tournament.  I can list many other types of WP articles on top scorers in tournaments (e.g. FIFA World Cup top goalscorers).  This seems to be a well constructed and well referenced article.  I can't see the violation of WP:PAG, or the harm to our readers, of knowing who the top scorers were at a WP-notable tournament? Britishfinance (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The inability of to make a simple short WP:PAG argument aside, I can't see what this is not a keep-article. Britishfinance (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)?
 * Here is an NBA article referencing Luis Scola as the Top Scorer in a FIBA World Cup . If the NBA think that this it is notable .... Britishfinance (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is The Bleacher Report referencing Pau Gasol as the Top Scorer in a FIBA World Cup . Britishfinance (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per my refs and discussion above, moving to a keep. Britishfinance (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are literally hundreds of online references to "Top Scorers" at FIBA World Cups. . Britishfinance (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note, for the WP:PAG of it, this list does NOT violate WP:LISTN. Per LISTN, this is a "complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")", where FIBA World Cup is the notable-X and Top scorer is the notable-Y.  This is why we have hundreds of WP-lists of such statistics (I won't bore you by listing them). I do agree with deleting WP-LISTS where the statistic is not notable (e.g. most fouls), however Top Scorer is (as is evident by the scale of WP articles chronicling Top Scorers in WP-notable tournaments). Britishfinance (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2019 (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.