Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNT's Next 10 Greatest 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

TNT's Next 10 Greatest NBA Players

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating after WP:PROD was contested 12 days later. Article fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from independent sources. The list is a product of a made-for-TV special. I can't find any sources after the event to indicate enduring notability. The most significant coverage is archived here from SI.com. However it is not independent. From the source: "I've been asked to offer my opinion on who should join the NBA's original 50 greatest players for SI.com (TNT's corporate partner)." Seems to have been written for cross-promotional purposes. —Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. If it were a formal NBA-endorsed addition to the original 50 then it would be notable content to merge into the article on the original 50; but this does not appear to be the case, so a deletion would seem the logical conclusion. Aspirex (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed that WP:PRESERVE was not an option here in lieu of AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator's rationale: completely lacking in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG and WP:RS. Clearly promotional for TNT, the primary source.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable TV special failing GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Specials have little more inherent notability than episodes, and this seems like it was a special only aired once, likely with only archive footage and commentary, no original programming. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  02:54, 30 April 2015 (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.