Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SLAM Magazine's Top 75 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. Combined concerns about inaccuracy, triviality and copyright violation lead to a definite consensus. ~ mazca ^talk 10:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SLAM Magazine's Top 75 Players of All-Time (NBA)[edit]

Another Wikipedian listed this as a speedy, citing the fact that it has no sources other than forum posts. While I agree that it should be deleted, I think a fuller discussion here would be appropriate first. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick FYI: An updated ranking (June 2009) with reliable sources has been added to Wikipedia. See SLAM Magazine's Top 50 Players of All-Time (NBA). Zodiiak (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 16:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually have a copy of this magazine sitting around somewhere, and I can see right away that a few things are incorrect. Kobe Bryant wasn't #4; I don't think he was even in the top 50. However, those issues are fixable. What we should really be discussing is whether or not the article is a copyright violation. Zagalejo^^^ 21:22, 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) 00:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of whether the list is a copyvio, most lists of "Top Ten" or "Top 50" or "Top (fill in the blank with your favorite number)" are trivia and do not constitute encyclopedic content. Most every magazine puts out a "Top (number)" list at some point in its publication; these lists are not notable. Otto4711 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list itself is not a notable list, as can be seen from the fact that the only independent sources provided are message board posts (which are not reliable sources). The list is also possibly a copyright violation. Furthermore, the list is sourced to "a special issue released a few years back"; generally I prefer citations to magazine articles to be to specific issues, not to relative eras. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:32, 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.