Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterloo Hawks all-time roster


 * 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 (non-admin closure), with the hope, as per the editor's comment, this will not "jinx the servers and doom us all" Ecoleetage (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Waterloo Hawks all-time roster

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

You've got to be kidding me. This is a horrible list with no real sources. Waste of space. GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are all kinds of sources that can be used to verify the content in the article. The book Total Basketball, for example, contains information on every NBL and NBA player, and the Association for Professional Basketball Research provides information on the guys who played while Waterloo was in the NPBL: . I don't think the list is currently complete, but that can be fixed. Zagalejo^^^ 05:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia isn't having any problems with disk space as far as I know. Habanero-tan (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't say that... you'll jinx the servers and DOOM US ALL!!! On a more serious note, I don't want to invoke the "other stuff exists" argument, but are there any comparable all-time rosters on Wikipedia? The concept is a good idea for a team fansite or historical site (Yes, I am aware that the team appeared to exist professionally for a small number of years in late 40s-early 50s), and the content appears verified or at least verifiable, but I am only 90% sold (read: weak keep) on the idea as a Wikipedia article. As an alternate option, slap the tables together into one (not split by letter) and crash-merge into the Waterloo Hawks section (which at this moment is a de-pretty-fied version of this article, within an article that has plenty of room for material). -- saberwyn 09:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are lots of all-time rosters: Boston Celtics all-time roster, Chicago Cubs all-time roster, etc Zagalejo^^^ 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Waterloo Hawks aren't the Boston Celtics or Chicago Cubs. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So? They were still a real NBA team. Zagalejo^^^ 22:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Their roster is already on the Waterloo Hawks page. Why is there another page devoted to their roster? -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The list on the team page is just bare bones. This list seems like an attempt to make a nicer looking, more informative list of players. For the record, neither list is complete; both exclude the guys who played while the Hawks were in the NBL or NPBL. A true all-time roster would be much longer (and would more clearly justify the use of a separate article to present that information.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not just have the nicer looking chart on the main Waterloo page. Makes no sense to have a random roster from the late 40s on two different pages. Wondering how many people will actually find the page under investigation right now. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't make a fuss over a merge, but that wouldn't require deletion of this article. We could just work out the details on an article talk page. Zagalejo^^^ 15:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with Waterloo Hawks OR Keep I am finding it really hard to draw the line with this one, I cannot figure out how notable it is, does mention in a book of all players ever to play (such as Total Basketball make them notable? But I am certain about one thing; the fact that the tables are sortable but still separated by letter just doesn't make any sense, that really needs to be fixed. Atyndall93  |  talk  09:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of these players would pass the primary notability criterion. Even if they had undistinguished pro careers, they were at least (in most cases) well-known players at the college level, and were discussed in newspaper articles in their day. Zagalejo^^^ 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Erring on the side of merge, but I think this qualifies for an article in its own right per WP:N. However, the article needs a cleanup, but that's not what AfD is for. PeterSymonds | talk  09:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This has already come up for discussion as to the professional baseball all-time rosters Articles for deletion/Chicago Cubs all-time roster, where the decision was that an all-time roster of a notable professional sports team is definitely encyclopedic. (For the record, I'm wondering what the nominator's deletion reason is? "horrible list with no real sources" isn't a valid deletion reason as far as I can see.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comentario - It's not a valid reason? Why the heck are Wiki admins so bent on making sure everything is cited and in the best condition possible? I've had plenty of edits reverted because of not having a documented source to back it up. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverting an edit is not the same as deleting an article. AfD is not the place to resolve editing issues.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Separate issue, not involving this article. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * COMMENT If only people would take 2-3 minutes and look at everything. The Waterloo roster is already on the Waterloo Hawks team page. Why is their a second page that is incomplete I might add for a team that has been defunct since the 1950s. The Cubs have been around 100+ years, you need a separate article to list thousands of players. You don't need one for 20-25 guys that Waterloo had in its small existence. Comparing the Cubs to the Waterloo Hawks is like comparing Nike to sneakers some guy makes in his garage. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why are you asking for deletion instead of being WP:BOLD and merging the information?--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because its not about a merger. The main page already has the roster, the second page is a duplicate. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (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.