Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Croatian NBA players


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Croatian NBA players

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I find this list an unnecessary content fork because the same info is already presented in List of foreign NBA players. I agree that this is well-referenced and notable. But those are not the point of this afd. We should seriously ask ourselves why a separate list is needed here. The main list is not too long yet. So, I can't even think of a valid reason of keeping this. — Chris! c / t 18:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because the above reason:


 * To clarify, I redirected them to the main list previously (some have been reverted). But now I think they should be deleted. Do we seriously need a redirect for every country?— Chris! c / t 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The list contains match statistics as well as players who were drafted but never appeared in the NBA which will both be lost after it gets merged with the general List of foreign NBA players after you decided to merge without even attempting to discuss it in those article's talk pages. I don't see any reason why these lists shouldn't be able to co-exist, unless you find a way to include all the information contained in those lists into the general foreign players list. Also, the reason you cited in the edit ("separate list not needed;it actually makes updating more difficult") doesn't really sound convincing as this particular list contains a total of 16 Croatian players in the history of NBA, with the grand total of 9 (nine) being drafted in the past 10 years. It doesn't sound too difficult to update to me. '' Timbouctou 19:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure the main list is missing some info. But I argue that those info are extraneous. The purpose of this list is to list foreign player, but not to list other statistics. If one is interested, they can look it up in player's biography. I must add that players drafted but didn't actually play in NBA games aren't considered NBA players.— Chris! c / t 19:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As Timbouctou has already said, these pages contain more information then the global one, and as far as the Serbian page is concerned (i don't really know about the other ones), it has been regularly updated, so I really can't see a single reason for the deletion. As a counterexample, there are lists of episodes of certain TV shows (List of The Big Bang Theory episodes), and then there are pages for the seasons, with more info on the episodes of a specific season (List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 2)), and then, there are even pages on the subject of a specific episode (The Terminator Decoupling). Following your logic, all of that isn't needed and should be deleted. If that is the case, you should make a broader discussion on the subject, but I sincerely doubt there would be many people that would accept your stance...--Vitriden (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 2) has much more information than List of The Big Bang Theory episodes, while here the sub-list contains basically the same information with the main article. The games statistics are equivalent to the years in the NBA. The only difference is the teams information. — Martin tamb (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there is not much more information, just a short episode info, which can also be found on the episode page. Therefore, I can see no difference between these two cases.--Vitriden (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look closely, the main TV episode list is actually quite redundant (it lists episodes without a summary, while the sublists list the same info with a summary) and could be deleted. That just prove my point that redundant pages should be deleted.— Chris! c / t 18:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, actually, that absolutely disproves your point. Deleting that sublist would have proven your point, its existence here disproves it. And, if I may be redundant too, if that displeases you, then you should ask for deletion of all such sublists, but you have to start a much broader argument on the subject in that case.--Vitriden (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop twisting my word. I never suggest that all sublists should be deleted. What I argue was that all unnecessary lists should be deleted. Sublists would be necessary if the main list is too long or the subject is too complex that the creation of sublists is unavoidable. But this is clearly not the case here. The sublists here are not necessary because it basically rehashes the same info. (I already explained why those extra info are superfluous) In the case of the TV episode lists, the main list imo is unnecessary. The sublists provide summary that would be too much info if included in the main list. So, no, I do not need to start a general discussion about sublists because I never argue for the deletion of all of them.— Chris! c / t 20:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have never said that you had previously said that all sublists should be deleted. Read more carefully. I've said that your point would have been valid had it been proven on previous occasions. It hasn't been, since some lists with more detailed info than the main list, but with less info than the one in the single articles on the subjects listed, do exist. And if these sublists (not all sublists, only the ones you consider contain redundant info), if these lists should be deleted, it should be voted & noted somewhere. I am just pointing out this isn't a lonely case, but something that has been spread all around wikipedia. I don't find it wrong or bothersome in any way, but if you do, you should start discussion on that issue. I see nothing wrong with that. Peace.--Vitriden (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So my points are invalid because tons of unnecessary and redundant contents exist on Wikipedia. I think you are just making a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Remember, there is nothing stopping anyone from creating unnecessary sublists. Also saying that deletion of redundant content hasn't been done on previous occasions is just plain wrong. A recent case I encountered where redundant content was deleted was Articles for deletion/List of townlands in County Laois.— Chris! c / t 01:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, other crap does exist. But your comparison is out of place. The info on these pages is not redundant, or, at worst, not completely redundant. And, while adding clubs and numbers of games would overhaul the main list, these smaller lists handle it perfectly fine, as far as I can see. I also see no problem with adding players who have been drafted, but didn't play in the NBA. It would be too much for the main list, but for someone who is looking for the information on Serbian/Croatian/French... connections with the NBA clubs, and therefore comes to a specific page, these are valuable information. I don't understand your point, I just don't. Here is another example. There is an article called Foreign relations of Poland. There is also an article named Foreign relations of Belarus. And then, there is an article called Poland–Belarus relations. This article contains pretty much the same information as do the Belarus and Poland sections of the respective articles, with somewhat more external links, better prose, etc. But - and this is the main part - the people coming to this page focus on this subject knowing that this subject will never be covered as thoroughly in these two articles as it will be in that one separate article, because it explains a relation between two subjects, and that relation itself forms a separate third subject. In the same way, these sublists are focused on a relation between certain country's basketball players and the NBA, an internationally acclaimed world's strongest basketball league. This relation can not be covered in any other way as thoroughly as through these separate articles. Anyway, if that explanation doesn't please you, we'll see the results of this poll in a few days and what most people consider appropriate, we should consider a fact. I see no other way to maintain wikipedia functionally, really...--Vitriden (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Players drafted but never appeared in the NBA are not actually NBA players, so they are out of scope of both main article and the sub-lists. The main reason why these sub-list should not co-exists is because they are redundant, the number of players on the sub-list are relatively small (12 in Croatian list, 20 in Serbian list, 7 in Turkish list, 4 in Montenegrin list, 15 in French list, 6 in Greek list). I also believe that content forking should be avoided if possible. Instead of games statistics, the main article has the years they were active in the NBA, which I believe has the same purpose which is to show the readers how successful they are in the NBA. Listing all the teams they played for are a little bit excessive, even for a stand-alone sub-list. — Martin tamb (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The lists are well created, with place to be expanded, and national separation is well arranged. Anyway, even if it is merged to a single article, those redirects must exist. Also, i would gladly search only for Croatian or Serbian NBA players, in a separate article, just because it may be important enough to have it separated. That was the main idea for its creation. And Serbian article is here since 2006! And now it is unneeded? What about all this years? It was well updated, better the "main" list. A Also i find this AfD unnecessary housekeeping, with no good reason. -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The time of existence has nothing to do with this. Just because no one has bothered to nominate them for deletion, doesn't mean they should exist. I also disagree that they are better than the main one. The sub lists basically rehash the same information on the main article as I have explained already.— Chris! c / t 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The argument for deletion is that all information in this list is either redundant or unimportant, but I'd say that seasons/games is a useful addition, especially in a sortable table. (Personally, I'd ditch drafted-only players and perhaps teams and playoff games too.) I agree completely that there is fundamentally no reason not to have a single list (that is, no reason yet, as the number of foreign players is rising sharply), but the layout and content of this list should be built on at least a some kind of rough consensus. You've gone and redirected all those lists - nothing wrong with that, you were being bold - but some sort of discussion is obviously needed. GregorB (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure I could have gained consensus before merging but that is all in the past now. You seem to agree that there is fundamentally no reason not to have a single list, yet you are voting keep. Could you clarify that?— Chris! c / t 20:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seasons/games could be a useful addition, I don't totally disagree with that. So that could potentially be added to the main list.— Chris! c / t 20:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I cannot speak for others who voted keep, but I don't think this list should be kept at all costs. Once useful stuff is merged, things will be different. GregorB (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added number of seasons played to the main list. Number of games wasn't added because those figures change frequently and is more difficult to maintain. Please take another look, thanks.— Chris! c / t 04:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Timbouctou. "The list contains match statistics as well as players who were drafted but never appeared in the NBA which will both be lost after it gets merged with the general list". Kebeta (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly you didn't read the above comments carefully. Some extraneous statistics would be "lost" after merging. But I argue that the info isn't lost because they are already in the player's biography. Also players drafted but never appeared in an NBA game are not NBA players, so they are out of scope of both the main list and the sub-lists. Thus, the lost info argument is moot.— Chris! c / t 18:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The point of this discussion is not to decide what is "extraneous statistics" for the main list. Something that is extraneous for the main list may not be that way for lists by nation. Your argument that a piece of information is not needed because it is already mentioned in players' biographies could be used to argue against the general list too (hey, don't all NBA players have seasons stats, club info and nationality mentioned in their respective biographies and why shouldn't we get rid of all lists then because a reader can click through hundreds of biographies and get the same information as presented in the main list?). And since being drafted for the strongest basketball league on the planet is probably considered a sort of an achievement for people who are basketball professionals (and by extension to their national leagues as individual players are products of it), I think it would be better to have a place on Wikipedia where one could see an overview of this. There's simply no good reason NOT to offer this information. I understand that the main list would be difficult to manage and update if all statistics from national lists were to be included into the main list - and that's precisely the reason why these lists SHOULD be kept as they fill a role which is not (and probably will never be) covered by the main list. I for one would like to be able to see an overview of all Croatian/Serbian/French players who ever appeared in the NBA (or came close to appearing in it), accompanied with club info and match statistics and/or any silverware won so that one could see at a glance who was the most successful player from country X in the NBA. I consider this kind of information pretty useful and I have yet to hear a convincing argument against it. Just because the main list is unable to offer something doesn't mean that the same piece of information shouldn't be offered elsewhere. '' Timbouctou 13:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So, you are saying that the main list is not necessary because one can click through hundreds of biographies and look for the info. I wonder how that is convenient to our readers. The main list is not unnecessary because readers do look for that info somewhere on Wikipedia. But the point is, do we need more lists showing the same info? No, we don't and that is the whole point of this afd, getting rid of unnecessary lists. And sure being drafted to the NBA is an achievement no doubt, but that is not the scope of the lists because they only focus on NBA players. Unless there is a change to the list names to something like List of Croatian NBA players and draftees, it is not appropriate to include them. As for the usefulness of the sublists, I still don't see it. Please ask yourself, what info on the sublists is missing from the main list? (excluding drafted players which I already explained why they should not be included) The number of games is really the only piece of info that is missing. But is that a piece of info people need to see when they search for foreign players? I think not. And the number of seasons (already on the main list) pretty much convey the same thing as the number of games. And you say you want to "see an overview of all Croatian/Serbian/French players who ever appeared in the NBA". Can't you see that on the main list? Can you give me a valid reason why you need to see the exact same info on separate lists? You kept on insisting that the sublists "fill a role which is not covered by the main list". What role would that be? I really had a hard time understanding all that. Thus, I still don't see a valid reason to keep.— Chris! c / t 19:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep All of these articles could benefit from a little more context (such as the extent to which they are noticed in the media "back home"), but they're appropriate content forks from the quite-large list of foreign-born NBA players. Mandsford 23:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain to me why these content forks are appropriate. They are essentially duplicates of the main list.— Chris! c / t 01:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If they were duplicates this discussion wouldn't be needed and the definition of "essentially" obviously varies from editor to editor. As for duplicates, see stuff like Category:Lists of Medal of Honor recipients. Granted, Wikipedia doesn't have a full main list with all recipients to date, but it does have lists of recipients by ethnicity, by conflict, as well as three other lists with recipients who are still living, and by alumni of the military and naval academies. Using Chris' logic, if a certain editor woke up one day and decided to compose a complete list of all the recipients these 20+ lists would all have to be taken to AfD because that would make them "essentially duplicates of the main list" and one would see arguments such as "ethnicity, conflict and education are already included in their respective biographies". And I doubt that would go very well. The same could be said for Category:Nobel laureates, where you've got the main list of winners in the main article, plus lists of winners by country, female winners, Jewish winners, black winners, and winners by educational institution (including secondary schools). I'm sure all of the above are included in the main list and are "essentialy duplicates". '' Timbouctou 13:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure if one "decided to compose a complete list of all the recipients", then the sublists will automatically become duplicates. But back to reality, why would any normal person even compose a complete list of all the recipients? Cramping all that into onto one list would be too much. Thus, creation of sublists is out of necessity. Can we say the same about NBA foreign players? Not really. Having all the NBA foreign players on one list is not too much yet. Hence all the sublists do not need to exist.— Chris! c / t 19:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I guess the argument here is not that every sub-list is redundant. It is whether the sub-lists have more information so that they merit their own article. In my opinion, these sub-lists fail to offer more information than the main list, which recently has been expanded to include more information. Sure there are games statistics in the sub-lists but I still believe that it is not essential to list of players. Years and seasons played in the NBA are more suitable for this kind of list. As mentioned above, the sub-lists have plenty of room for improvement. The sub-lists could mention simple information such as the honors, awards or championships won by the players during their time in the NBA. Right now, the sub-lists don't even have any lead section. One or two sentences in the lead could mention the players' achievements in the NBA or probably another column in the table to list their achievements. Unless there are any major improvement to the sub-lists, I still think the sub-lists are unnecessary. — Martin tamb (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, the list can get mor information and explanations that the main article can have. For example, for countries with few NBA players, we can recall the draft history, allow statistics comparison, etc. A single list wouldn't allow much information and would be virtually unreadable.. Furthermore, you can look at the French wikipedia entry of List of French NBA players to see what is feasible on such a list and why aggregating them is not possible. Poppy (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2010 (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.