Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SLAM Magazine's Top 50 Players of All-Time (NBA)

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SLAM Magazine's Top 50 Players of All-Time (NBA)

This is yet another "X's List of Top X" type article. It has the same problem they all do, which is that there is no reliable sourcing here. It's basically a list made up by some editors of a magazine. It's non-notable fancruft type stuff. As I've said before, if it's Billboard magazine, it's different because they have a reliable, secure basis for their charts. These articles are basically a bunch of editors in a room deciding who is fantastic without any criteria. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they have a ton of criteria. The article has the sources and each person listed has a detailed explaination on why they are ranked in such order, i.e. impact, statistical output, championships, team chemistry, era, coaching effects, etc. I added the article to replace the old list because the top 75 list was sourced via a forum and was 6 years out dated. This however, is sourced from the magazine and was just recently released. Most of the stuff on Wikipedia is sourced from "some editors in a magazine" or newspaper. From the NYTimes to Reuters, etc. it's all from various editors. Zodiiak (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not for reasons listed: copyright concerns here, for the same thing discussed with regards to the Rolling Stones 500s lists (The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time and The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time) - those lists are clearly notable, but at one point were a reproduction of the entire list. This was discussed and considered to be a copyvio in the US (various links to discussions on the subject coming up: 1, 2, 3). Additionally, if you wished to cull it to show only an excerpt, this page would be left with little left.

Even besides all of that, I'm not even remotely convinced that it's notable: Rolling Stone (as much as they may be disagreeable) is an incredibly notable magazine, and its lists there are oft used as benchmarks for later "greatest music" lists; I fail to see any similar historical relevance for this list. A list on its own, even in a notable magazine, does not inherently infer notability. No coverage in third party sources = delete. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 09:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources have been provided that discuss this list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.