Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the 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 Keep as a week is suggesting Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  04:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

History of the Cleveland Cavaliers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Redundancy - basically a word for word rehash of the main Cleveland Cavaliers article. Vjmlhds 15:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Opposed It is currently redundant because Cleveland Cavaliers needs trimmed down. It currently has 14 subheadings just for that section. It should be far more of a summary than what is currently there, with a few subheadings, if any, and a limited number of paragraphs. Most of the year-by-year details that are added to Cleveland Cavaliers every year should be added to the history article instead and better summarized on the main article.


 * Strong Keep per above. This article was created as a way to trim the the team history section of the Cleveland Cavaliers page.  Frank Anchor Talk 15:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Nothing here for AfD to consider. This is a content-distribution issue. The existence of Category:National Basketball Association history by team suggests having this article is a good idea.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Second Milowent. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep this -- I agree with the last two contributors. The history section in the team article is rather long.  This is a case where forking (with a main template) is appropriate.  The action needed is to prune the history section of the team article down to a single paragraph, with a link to what we are discussing here.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Eminently appropriate POV Fork.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2016 (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.