Talk:2008–09 ACB season

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Basketball

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BasketballWikipedia:WikiProject BasketballTemplate:WikiProject BasketballBasketball articles

On notability

The specious arguments made in the AfD and recent edit summaries that this article is automatically noteworthy because it is somehow attached to a notable sporting league is no more true than it is for the myriad unsourced and rapidly deleted pages about specific episodes and seasons of TV shows. The linked pages for NBA seasons in the AfD that this article was (again, erroneously) compared to both contain multiple independent/third party WP:RS. Please establish the notability of this particular topic (the season, not the league) before removing the notability warning. Had editors been given a chance to rebut the relatively weak keep arguments in the AfD, it might well have been deleted - Please keep in mind that a second AfD is always an option if the article cannot be thoroughly sourced.

Use the 2009 NFL season and 2008-09 NBA season as examples of well-written prose that could be used to replace this indiscriminate collection of information. Just be careful not to stray from that into WP:OR, which seems to be a borderline-relevant concern in both the aforelinked articles. Again, the Wikipedia is not ESPN, and does not exist to publish statistics for statistics' sake. MrZaius^talk 05:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the AfD was invalid because everybody said keep? Sounds like a rather pathetic complaint. WP:SNOW means it doesn't have a "snowball's chance in hell" of achieving a consensus for delete. Why? Because it's notable, and there's really nothing you can do to change that. Grsz ¹¹ 06:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was closed prematurely because noone had a chance to rebut the weak arguments concerning notability. If you look back at it, you'll see that your own argument was purely focused on the notability of the league, not the season, a common mistake that is often swatted down in AfD debates surrounding TV episodes or character lists which, for all intents and purposes, is precisely what this article is. Two of the other three Keeps had even less merit, being a mere "me too" of that flawed argument. We've always operated by general consensus, not perfect consensus, and effectively rebutting the weak arguments made in the first few hours of the AfD might well have resulted in a substantial shift. On a related note, your recent edit summary that said that notability and sources were unrelated was completely erroneous. See WP:GNG.

That said, that's not at all the main point I made above. The main point, which was ignored in your response, was that the article is, well, not an article. It needs to be rewritten as well-sourced prose to prevent another AfD, and another AfD might very well be succesful. Though this is more a cleanup point than an AfD trigger if you're correct that better sources exist, the article still doesn't make an effectively sourced assertion of notability. Though they didn't get a chance to participate prior to closure, at least two other editors expressed similar concerns. Again, would someone familiar with the subject matter please add multiple, independent, reliable sources to the article? As it currently stands (a collection of statistical data with next to no associated text), it really doesn't belong here. Again, see WP:IINFO to see why the rewrite is necessary. MrZaius^talk 04:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't seen reliable English language sources that provide notability for the season rather than the league or teams therein. Is there anything out there that can be used to bring this past the one paragraph of primary-source backed fluff, or will this article forever remain a table of unencyclopedic stats? AfD still seems warranted, but figured I'd ask before renominating. MrZaius^talk 16:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could've been better if this had prose. The NBA season article had prose, but in bulleted lists. I guess that's better. This is notable since this is one of the top -- if not the top -- basketball leagues in Europe. –Howard the Duck 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To argue that this topic is automatically notable without reliable sources is to say that every game in the league's history and that every episode and season of every TV show in history similarly derives notability from its parent. You don't meet a specially lowered standard of notability because your TV show was filmed live and incorporated bouncing balls. The NFL and NBA articles were notable because there were third party sources that were explicitly about the seasons, not just general sources about the league or original research on the subject of individual games that happened in it (although both are present). That's what's missing here, and more likely than the lop-sidedness of this seemingly random collection of charts to lead to deletion. Just haven't had time to try yet - Work's been busy. Might give it another shot tonight. MrZaius^talk 04:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I don't think you'll ever succeed in deleting this article. I'd say this is a problem of the European leagues in any sport, tons of stats and no prose. But the league and the season per se is notable enough for Wikipedia. Note that not every game in league history is notable; only every season. We don't have articles for every game, but in American sports articles, every "big" regular season (especially in American football) has one. It's like this was the last immediate league Pau Gasol played at before being drafted to the NBA. –Howard the Duck 06:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the top of my priority list, and I really don't have time enough to waste going through nominations and vigorous monitoring of AfD/GA/etc processes any more, but I honestly think a well-reasoned and successful case for lack of notability could be made. There still haven't been any specific arguments made yet about why inherited notability should apply in this case, and I honestly think that endorsing them triggers a slippery slope towards undermining numerous other policies in the notability guidelines. Had the AfD been monitored by people with a stronger policy focus and responding less out of impulse to protect the topic's reputation, I believe it would have gone quite differently, for precisely that reason. MrZaius^talk 15:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been a practice (although NOT a policy or guideline) that all professional sports leagues' seasons are inherently notable. This has been true for association football (LOTS of leagues), baseball (MLB, NPB and CPBL), American football (NFL and AFL), ice hockey (NHL and European leagues), rugby (Guinness Premiership and the like) and basketball (NBA, Euroleague and others). This began with the FIFA World Cup tournament articles, which was then applied to all pro sports leagues. –Howard the Duck 06:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]