Talk:Luka Dončić–Anthony Davis trade

Sources

More sources could work Goatsep (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I know citing reddit itself is not the best source just how citing Wikipedia itself is not the best, but they do link to actual other sources and articles that could be used, to provide context behind the trade and the aftermath of it.

https://search.pullpush.io/ is a good resource to narrow down the search using timeframes, and use /r/NBA to find links and threads with the following possible search terms: "Doncic", "Luka", "Harrison", "Pelinka", "Lakers", "Mavericks", and so forth Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Article Name

I was considering shortening the name of the article to simply "Luka Dončić trade". Luka being involved in the trade is the clear selling point; Davis is a good player but most of the discussion surrounding this trade is about Luka. Shortening the title this way also keeps it consistent with the "See also" pages, as the "_____ trade" titles also only include the most prominent name involved. Vitex198 (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vitex198: Done. However, please be aware that if someone opposes the move, based on site policy it would need to be reverted back to the original status-quo title and a move request filed to seek wider community input for consensus on the matter. Left guide (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I suppose I'm prepared for my decision to be under much more scrutiny than one person. Thank you very much. Vitex198 (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I would ask that there be a request for comment (or whatever the proper procedure is to seek consensus on the name change). Anthony Davis is a massive name in basketball, who has achieved some of the highest accolades, and to see him omitted from the title is bizarre to me. -CarlStrokes (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Left guide and Vitex198: it's now been disputed. Time to move it back and RM. DMacks (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@DMacks:  Done; thanks for notifying me. Left guide (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there gonna be a "disputed title" prompt for this article where people debate on it, or just leave it as is and only use this thread for it? Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The dispute only applied to the article being moved from the current title to one that omitted Davis from the name. Future proposed name changes would need to go through an RM first to get a consensus. -- ZooBlazer 21:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Conspiracies section?

As long as we find official articles and sources discussing them (and not just online Internet banter), can we add a section for speculation/conspiracies surrounding the trade?

Some examples I've seen and I'll try to starting looking for actual articles, including: Harrison and Pelinka having a past working relationship with each other, Adelson-Dumont family/owners trying to depress interest in the Mavs in order to move the team from Dallas to Las Vegas, Silver conspiring the move to force a superstar to a large market in Los Angeles Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Even if the sources are reliable the assertions quoted within the sources shouldn't overwhelm the article. "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." (WP:FALSEBALANCE) Namelessposter (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Duyneuzaenasagae: If/when possible, can you please indicate specific sources? It's much easier to discuss and scrutinize actual sources rather than theoretical ones. Thanks. Left guide (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe @HalfOfAnOrange has already made such an edit. I think the size is generally appropriate but it should probably be toned down and moved to the Dallas subsection. I also haven't reviewed the sourcing in any kind of detail. Namelessposter (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

After reading the sources, which actively criticize the conspiracy theories, I do not think we should mention them very much. The "move the team from Dallas" theory is worth noting because the team specifically acknowledged and rejected it. The "improve ratings" theory is based on four tweets, and you can get four people to believe anything on NBA Twitter. I'll remove the latter. Namelessposter (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Currently on mobile and unable to effectively edit at the moment.

I think I've found a few articles (that I still need to read and vet) discussing the prior Harrison-Pelinka relationship (back when they were colleagues, and noting they are friends).

Would that angle be worth exploring, even in brief? Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I’d have to see the article, but alleging that Harrison gave his pal a special deal that undermined his own team is a more serious and personal accusation than “Adam Silver ordered Nico to trade Luka so that he could play in the #2 media market instead of the #4 media market,” so I’m skeptical right off the bat. Namelessposter (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if it's enough to add in or if it's already mentioned in the page yet, but:

-----

1) https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/43676830/how-stunning-luka-doncic-anthony-davis-trade-came-together-los-angeles-lakers-dallas-mavericks

> PELINKA AND HARRISON'S relationship dates back to the summer of 2003, when both were ambitious young executives who had earned the trust of a then-25-year-old Kobe Bryant. Bryant had left his longtime agent Arn Tellem in March 2002 and convinced Pelinka, then a junior executive at Tellem's company SFX, to leave with him.

> He was also a sneaker free agent after his contract with Adidas had lapsed. Rather than re-sign with the company immediately, Bryant chose to open up the process. He'd wear Nike's one night, Reeboks another, all trying to froth the market after he'd helped the Lakers win their third championship in a row.

> Nike was focused on a high schooler named LeBron James at the time and put its A-team on the case.

> Harrison, then a junior executive in his mid-20s, was tasked with recruiting Bryant. He attended every home game that year, but Bryant mostly ignored him. Eventually his persistence paid off, and in the summer of 2003, Harrison and Pelinka closed a five-year, $40 million deal for Bryant to join Nike.

...

> Over the next decade Pelinka and Harrison travelled the world together with Bryant on official Nike business and joint family vacations. They were members of Bryant's inner circle, and they leaned on each other when Bryant tragically died in a helicopter crash in 2020.

> All of which is prologue to why Harrison only felt comfortable discussing the biggest gamble of his professional career with Pelinka.

-----

2) https://thesportsrush.com/nba-news-how-lakers-gm-rob-pelinka-and-mavericks-gm-nico-harrisons-close-relationship-led-to-luka-doncic-trade/

More or less rehashing above, but a little differently and with some commentary from a different sports writer in Marc Stein Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

To satisfy Wikipedia's rules on articles about living persons (WP:BLP), we have to provide sourcing for every contestable claim or inference about a living person. ("Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant.") The standard for including that material is higher than the regular standard for adding material to Wikipedia.

I agree that we have reliable sources saying that Pelinka and Harrison have a longstanding familiarity with each other. But that information seems like trivia to me - UNLESS we make the separate inference that Harrison shut everyone out of the trade because he likes Pelinka and wanted to do a deal with him, or worse, wanted to do him a favor. In fact, the Sports Rush link explicitly makes that connection, but in a purely speculative way: that "their friendship also may have resulted in a lesser return for Doncic than the Mavs would have gotten from another team." It's a very short article and is purely commentary, not far from scuttlebutt. You note Marc Stein (who, I agree, has more gravitas), but that's just an embedded tweet. And in that tweet, Stein didn't endorse that additional step. Stein just says they have a preexisting relationship.

I get the argument that, per the ESPN article, the relationship technically is part of the rationale: "For a trade of this magnitude to come to fruition, the circle had to be small. And the only person Harrison felt he could trust to execute this highly charged, intensely secretive process was Pelinka." But we already have extensive material on why Harrison valued Davis over extra picks (i.e., to deal with the Lakers) and why he didn't want to go public. At best, adding the Pelinka-relationship material fuels rumors that weren't intended by the original article.

You can always return to this discussion if something new is revealed.

Paging @DMacks and @Bagumba who know more about this stuff than I do. Namelessposter (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree that the previously mentioned WP:FALSEBALANCE should be considered, along with WP:WEIGHT. There's also WP:VNOT:

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate.

—Bagumba (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Not quite sure what I'm being asked here specifically, but Bagumba is right, that WP:V is necessary (policy) but not sufficient (editorial decisions in general). I'll add that WP:DUE policy for level of detail (or inclusion at all) in context of article is a key. Finding WP:SECONDARY reporting on something can help resolve whether a topic about which "some organization tweets about themselves/their members" or "something someone says they heard on the internet" is worth mentioning at all. DMacks (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Is conspiracy here implying that they did something illegal or underhanded? —Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Engelmann article on Mavs stats department

This article by a former Mavs stat analyst looks interesting but is paywalled. Does anyone have access? A Reddit post by someone who claimed to have read the article said that the Mavs' stats department thinks Doncic is overrated. Namelessposter (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Namelessposter: I don't have access. Not sure if we're allowed to take other off-wiki people's word for what's in restricted sources, but at least on-wiki we have WP:AGF. Maybe consider inviting that person to contribute to this article using that source. p.s. thanks for all your work on the page. Left guide (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You too. This news will probably spread to a larger outlet. Too juicy to not cover and the media is in a feeding frenzy right now. Namelessposter (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

DYK?

Anyone wanna do WP:DYK for this article? It should qualify based on newness and size. Open to hearing hook ideas. Left guide (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I already have two DYKs on tap so I'm gonna opt out. Namelessposter (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

As for ideas: "first time two all-nba players were traded for each other" is the obvious hook, the other plausible hook is Shams saying he thought he was hacked too. Namelessposter (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I personally like the fans' mock funeral as a DYK hook. Seems relatable and meaningful to wider audiences viewing the main page, and not only sports/basketball fans. Left guide (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess? There really aren't that many people at the protest, although it was a weekday. [https://x.com/McFarland_Shawn/status/1886145539541991647] Either way, you can propose alternative hooks so there's no need to choose. Namelessposter (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Just a reminder that if someone is going to do a DYK for the article, there are only a couple days left to submit it, otherwise the next opportunity will be if the article becomes a GA. -- ZooBlazer 05:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Article on this trade

What is the point of creating an article on this? What about the Pau Gasol trade? That was a shocking trade. They traded Kwame Brown for Pau Gasol. How come there isn't an article on that?

To me this article is unnecessary. There's so many big other trades and free agent signing from stars signing the Lakers have done with no articles.

G4 84812 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the introduction paragraph says enough for you. This trade is quite literally unprecedented, and no disrespect to Pau, but Pau was not as big of a star nor as notable a talent at the time of his trading as Luka is now, and in hindsight the Pau trade is shocking. This is shocking in the moment. You can argue that BOTH are notable. No one's stopping you from making an article on that. Amongusman2004 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@G4 84812: It comes down to whether or not it passes WP:NEVENT. If you believe this trade doesn't deserve its own article, you may nominate it for deletion by following the steps at WP:AFD, and attempt to persuade the community with a rationale. However, please be advised that arguments regarding the existence (or lack thereof) of other pages such as Gasol/Brown are usually unhelpful. Ultimately, Wikipedia is a community volunteer project with no hierarchical coordination of content, so there's no requirement for any page to exist or not. Alternatively, if you believe Brown/Gasol is worthy of its own article, you are welcome to create one. Left guide (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll admit that the Gasol trade was unusually surprising at the time, but the standard for insane NBA trades has gotten a lot higher since then. Also, they traded Marc Gasol for Pau Gasol... which makes it look a lot more fair in hindsight. Namelessposter (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Namelessposter Lakers drafted Marc in 2007. When they traded him in 2008, nobody knew how good he would be, he was nothing but a question mark (?). Kwame Brown, Javaris Crittenton, Aaron Mckie, 2008 and 2010 1st round pick for Pau Gasol.

G4 84812 G4 84812 (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I did say Marc made the trade look more even "in hindsight." But if you want to look at where things stood at the time of the trade, how many All-NBA teams had Pau made in 2008? Zero. How many All-Star games? One. Did he request a trade beforehand? Yes, so this didn't exactly come out of nowhere, ESPN reported that MEM offered him to Chicago. So no, the Doncic trade is on a different level of weird. If you disagree, I echo the others' suggestion that you're welcome to start a Gasol trade article. Namelessposter (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The Gasol trade wasn't shocking at all. Kwame Brown was a bust. These two situations aren't even close. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Luka Dončić

• ... that Dallas Mavericks fans held a mock funeral with a coffin for Luka Dončić (pictured) in response to him being traded?

• Source: Mavericks fans widely panned the trade. After the news broke, a group of fans gathered outside of the American Airlines Center to protest the trade; some fans called for Harrison to be fired, and others brought a coffin to stage a mock funeral.

• ALT1: ... that the Luka Dončić–Anthony Davis trade is the first time in NBA history that two reigning All-NBA Team players have been traded for each other in midseason?Source: According to the Elias Sports Bureau (via ESPN), the trade was "the first time that two reigning All-NBA players have been traded for each other midseason."
• Reviewed:
• Comment: Preliminary discussion at Talk:Luka Dončić–Anthony Davis trade#DYK?. Courtesy ping @Namelessposter: in case you wanted to add alt-hooks. Left guide (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Moved to mainspace by Goatsep (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Left guide (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC).

References

Requested move 10 February 2025

Luka Dončić–Anthony Davis trade → Luka Dončić trade – Procedural filing to discern and finalize consensus on the matter. I have no opinion either way. See #Article Name above for prior discussion and rationales. Left guide (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 07:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping to all participants from the "Article Name" discussion: @Vitex198, CarlStrokes, DMacks, Duyneuzaenasagae, and ZooBlazer: Left guide (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, hello there again. I didn't see Carl's message until I got this notification, or I would've replied to him sooner.

  I'm honestly fine with the name as is, after reading more of the initial headlines they have mentioned Anthony Davis more, so I think he's important enough to stay in the title. Vitex198 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep I think it's fine as is because of Davis being a big name and being the key piece of the trade other than Luka. -- ZooBlazer 23:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Change Davis is a fantastic player in his own right make no mistake, but Luka is the main headliner of what happened here, a lot of the articles and post-trade reactions (from fans, pundits, NBA community, etc.) were centered around him and "Huh Luka Doncic get traded!?/Why did Luka Doncic get traded?", and Luka being an inner-circle superstar type of player based on his career/accomplishments/stats makes it more notable. Plus most other notable trades (such as the ones featured in other notable sports trades/"See Also" like Deshaun Watson/Jerome Bettis/Eric Lindros/Ricky Williams) only feature the one player in their titles: the headliner and main star of the trade.

Just as a thought experiment, if Doncic was traded for anyone else of a worse subjectively quality/perception than Anthony Davis, would the title be "Luka Doncic-XXX trade"? I wouldn't believe so.

As per "WP:CRITERIA", I feel that Luka Dončić trade would be more recognizable and straight to the point, it's more easier and shorter and natural to type out just with Doncic, it's precise in identifying Doncic as the main and clear headliner of the trade, it's concise enough to be focused (retroactively, people aren't gonna call it the "Anthony Davis trade to the Dallas Mavericks"), and consistent enough where the majority of the commentary around the trade is around Doncic (him being traded from Dallas, being traded to Los Angeles, the justifications and ramifications of the trade. etc.) Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, Doncic is the highlight of the trade and his notability (relative to the package received) is the main reason why this trade is so shocking. But Davis is also part of the reason why the trade is notable - it's the first time TWO All-NBA players were traded for each other midseason, and Davis was (if briefly) the highest-paid player in NBA history. Calling this the "Luka Doncic trade" implies that the Lakers won the trade. But will we feel the same way if the Lakers don't win the 2025 or 2026 finals and Doncic opts out in 2026? Better to keep it balanced by listing both stars. We can change it down the road, but right now leaving out AD from the title feels a little disrespectful. Namelessposter (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't agree that calling it the "Luka Doncic" trade implies the Lakers won it; it just implies that Doncic is the most notable player from the transaction. It is in line with other sports trades on Wikipedia such as the Herschel Walker, Ricky Williams, and Deshaun Watson trade where the losing team from their respective trades are the one who received the player mentioned FunkyMonkey143 (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  I take your point about Herschel/Ricky/Deshaun being on the losing side of the trade, but I don't think that's an appropriate comparison, as these players were primarily traded for draft capital, not current players. Dallas got one decent starter for Walker, and Cleveland and Washington didn't get any current players at all. Namelessposter (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  The Ricky Williams trade was not actually for a player, but for the draft to pick him. There's a reason why it's called the "Ricky Williams Trade" and not the "Redskins Trade Down" because the trade was more notable for the Saints giving up an entire draft class to draft Williams and not the Redskins gaining much more picks. FunkyMonkey143 (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  But it was known at the time of the trade that Miami would pick Williams, whereas it was not known that Washington would pick Cade McNown or any of the other guys. It made more sense to call it the "Ricky Williams trade."

  Anyway, bringing this back to the actual discussion, per WP:COMMONNAME most of the reporters we've cited on this page have called it the Luka-AD trade or the Doncic-Davis trade, see ESPN, NBA.com, Yahoo, SBN, Marca, NYTimes, CBS. Obviously, there are exceptions, see Vox and The Ringer, and there are some articles that focus on the ramifications for one specific team, see Athlon, but I don't see any basis to call it The Luka Doncic Trade right now. Namelessposter (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Assadzadeh (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - Both players are extremely notable in the NBA, and this is not just about Luka. CNC33 (. . .talk) 05:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Abstain I appreciate the neutral ping of all involved, but I was only involved in this aspect as patrolling/process rather than actually discussing merits. So I'll leave it to those who understand the nuances of these two people and their relative importance to the topic to opine. DMacks (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - This trade is monumental because both are All-NBA level player being traded mid-season (first time ever), both are instrumental enough for their previous teams, had achieved so much individually and team wise, and also both are future Hall of Famers (Oh yeah, everyone who watch basketball will agree with me on that last statement even though wiki world might said WP:Crystalball thing.

Lowyat Slyder (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Luka clears Street Clothes by a mile, he is a genuine first option who can create his own shot and playmake, how is this a discussion? Lakers fleeced the Mavs. AD will be perpetually injured for the rest of his career in Dallas and will never going to make it past the 2nd round while Luka will be sitting on at least 4-5 championships with the Lakers. 75.118.54.107 (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is proper to bring actual basketball debate here but please noted that AD had won an NBA championship, 2 OG gold medals, 1 world cup gold medal, 4x All NBA first team, 1x All NBA second team (last season), 5x times All Defense team (3x first, 2x second), 3x NBA blocks leaders, 75th anniversary team. with career stats of 24/11/3/1/2 (2 blocks per game career is elite for C).

What the thread here means that AD is notable enough to be put in this trade page title. He is literally on par with Doncic legacy wise (some of it even better). This is not the lopsided like Babe Ruth sale or Brock for Broglio trade like Herschel Walker or Eric Lindros. This is an eye for an eye. Lowyat Slyder (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Change- The article mentioned Doncic 137 times and Davis only 66 times. If the trade is notable for involving two All-NBA players, it needs be have nearly 50/50 coverage on the two players. "Luka Doncic trade" is also in line with other existing sports trades on Wikipedia (as well as sports discourse in general) by having the most notable player in the title regardless of the perceived winner. FunkyMonkey143 (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why 50/50 coverage should be our proxy for importance. I think a 2:1 ratio is far from disqualifying. More importantly, there just isn't as much coverage of AD - in large part because (wisely, in my view) AD and the Lakers have largely kept their mouths shut. We keep adding Doncic material to the article because the Mavs keep criticizing Doncic in the press. Namelessposter (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

50/50 coverage is important if it the trade is notable for 2 All-NBA players traded. The trade isn't even the biggest Anthony Davis trade of his career. There isn't as much coverage because the discourse on social media, the sports media etc, surrounding the trade comes from the Mavericks trading Doncic and not from the Lakers trading Davis. The fact that the Mavericks have to continuously speak about Doncic reflects how they have to continue to justify trading him. If it was seen as a lose for the Lakers, we'd see a similar push by the media towards them. FunkyMonkey143 (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to argue this point further but at the end of the day most news outlets are calling it the Doncic-Davis trade and that's what we normally go with. And I disagree with the idea that the Mavericks "have" to criticize Doncic in the press. Nobody's making them put their feet in their mouths. A lot of trades have winners and losers, but the contempt coming out of the Dallas camp is unusual by even NBA standards. Namelessposter (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose both players are important to the understanding of the trade. The press seems to have reported on it as the Dončić-Davis trade. SportingFlyer T·C 07:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Change Luka Doncic is the primary focus of this trade. While Anthony Davis is a well known basketball player, the majority of the media coverage and public reaction has centered around Luka Doncic. Many people expressed surprise and confusion at the idea of Luka being traded, highlighting his status as one of the NBA’s most prominent young stars and one of the best in the world. This makes his involvement in the trade the most significant aspect. CrowbarCatalyst (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, Dončić was the main focus of the trade, but changing the title of the article to Lula Dončić trade would not seem like a NPOV. Keeping both Dončić and Davis in the title would keep a NPOV Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Change "Luka Dončić trade" is a WP:COMMONNAME that meets WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE. While a search of "Anthony Davis trade" yields some headlines including Davis' name, ""Luka Doncic trade" hits are mostly without Davis in the title. Yes, Davis is a future Hall of Famer, but the sources to date are focused on the Doncic angle. WP:NPOVNAME is concerned more with biased terms, not with inclusion of all sides, but even biased titles that meet COMMONNAME are allowed. Vietnam War doesn't include "America" despite some calling it the American War.—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  The Vietnam War and Lula Dončić-Anthony Davis trade is a bad comparison. The Vietnam War was mainly fought in Vietnam. It was basically a civil war between the North and South. Not a war between the United States (Who supported South Vietnam) and Vietnam as a whole Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  It's a fact that it's called the "American War" in Vietnam. Anyways, the point is to use a CONCISE title, which may not include all the parties involved. —Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but again, not a good comparison. It is a fact that most of the fighting took place in Vietnam. It is not a fact that the Lakers won the trade Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Today's Antetokounmpo/Edwards report

Anyone know about the reliability of Gery Wolfel? He posted on his blog that the Mavs offered Doncic to MKE for Giannis Antetokounmpo, and also spoke with MIN (his sources didn't say for whom, but he assumes it was for Anthony Edwards). He appears to be a Wisconsin-based reporter. Namelessposter (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Namelessposter: Interesting find. He seems to meet WP:USEBYOTHERS as a reliable reporter in the NBA/basketball topic area from searching his name on Google Books. He is credited with conducting over three dozen interviews to build this Magic Johnson biography published by Celadon Books, an imprint of "Big Five" mainstream publisher Macmillan. He is cited in this book about Bulls history published by McFarland & Company. His views are discussed in this 2006 book about journalism in general published by Rowman & Littlefield. He's also mentioned in these two versions of a foreign language Kobe Bryant biography I can't easily read, which may also boost his credibility in the field; one of those is published by an imprint of Hachette Book Group (another "Big Five" mainstream publisher), so that connection looks promising. Left guide (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I take your point that GW is an actual reporter, but I want to hold off until someone like Shams/Stein/Shelburne confirms it. I'm concerned that it's been nearly a full workday and nobody has independently confirmed the claim - it's just been sites like "Sports Illustrated on [Team]" that are merely passing on the original report. We already have the note from The Athletic saying that the Mavs looked at someone else, which is a sufficient counterpoint to Harrison's claim that he only spoke with LAL. Namelessposter (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Waiting is always good per WP:RSBREAKING, and a way to guard against WP:NOTDIARY. —Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The claim can always be attributed if need be per WP:WIKIVOICE. Left guide (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Incidentally, those "On SI" team sites are unreliable (WP:NBARSU). —Bagumba (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree - there are a couple cases where "On SI" reprints more reliable sites' paywalled content under the guise of "news analysis," but it'd be better to strip out those cites where possible. I'll take a look at that. Namelessposter (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I removed but all but one "On SI" cite. The last one parrots Kevin Pelton's trade grade on ESPN, but I left it in since I don't have ESPN Insider. If anyone can cite-check the Pelton quote, feel free to take out the "On SI" cite. All the other SI cites are to the main site - I'm skeptical of those too, but it's not as much of a priority. Namelessposter (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to split and merge page into Luka Dončić and Anthony Davis

As far as I can tell, @Sushidude21! has proposed splitting this page and merging it into Dončić and Davis' respective Wikipedia articles. I am procedurally opening a discussion to consider the proposal. User:Sushidude21!, per WP:MERGEPROP, please kindly provide a statement explaining your reason for this action. Thank you. Namelessposter (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping to people who have participated in prior debates on this page: @Left guide, Vitex198, CarlStrokes, Duyneuzaenasagae, ZooBlazer, FunkyMonkey143, Assadzadeh, Lowyat Slyder, SportingFlyer, and CrowbarCatalyst: Namelessposter (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, and @CNC33 and @75.118.54.107. Namelessposter (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: Merging would cause the player articles to become bloated and undue with this material. This trade article is a reasonable WP:SPINOFF. Left guide (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per User:Left guide. In addition, the article satisfies WP:GNG because of the widespread news coverage following the trade, which specifically points out that the trade was extraordinary by NBA standards and had very little precedent. See Luka Dončić–Anthony Davis trade#NBA and sports media. Namelessposter (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose it's a bit recent, but this trade should be able to stand alone in article form through time. SportingFlyer T·C 03:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I suggested the merge as I don't believe a trade is sufficiently notable for its own page and WP:BASKETBALL is surprisingly silent on the subject. Sushidude21! (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

By "a trade is sufficiently notable," do you mean that no trade would ever be notable enough for its own page, or that this particular trade is not notable enough (or at least not yet)? Based on Category:Sports trades and Category:NBA transactions, this is the only NBA trade to have its own article. On the other hand, there are definitely sports trades in other sports with their own articles.

I still think this trade is particularly weird. I struggle to think of other recent NBA trades that involved players of similar importance on both sides and weren't based on draft picks that eventually hit, like "Gail Goodrich was traded for a draft pick that later became Magic Johnson" or "The Celtics' #1 pick was traded for Parish and the pick that became McHale." Namelessposter (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

If an article like this were to exist I also feel as though their should be ones for the Kareem and Wilt trades as well ass Bill Russell's situation with the Hawks, among others. I imagine this also applies to other sports. Sushidude21! (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Those non-recent trades would be easier to judge for WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. But there's always the WP:N caveat:

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

—Bagumba (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - This trade is too monumental to being added specifically into each others initial pages. since this trade is involving two huge stars, no one saw it coming (not even the current best player, current best insider knows) Only both GM know this. You can watch the ESPN video on how this trade just blown everyone away out of ANYONE sights. Deserve the WP:SPINOFF treatment nonetheless. Lowyat Slyder (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unlike most other sports trade, this trade ascended beyond the NBA and became substantial subject to general, non sports affiliated media. Such a trade should be designated its own page. Another sports trade with this much significance, the Herschel Walker trade, has one, so it's not like a page of this manner is even unprecedented. Also refer to others explanation of how extensive the details of this trade really is. A proper account to this event would take anywhere from 10-20 paragraphs and would needlessly extend not only Luka Doncic and Anthony Davis' articles, but also the Dallas Mavericks and the Los Angeles Lakers articles. Tburgers (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)