Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Cleveland Cavaliers (2nd nomination)

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

History of the Cleveland Cavaliers

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/History of the Cleveland Cavaliers
• Articles for deletion/History of the Cleveland Cavaliers (2nd nomination)

History of the Cleveland Cavaliers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant - word for word copy of the bulk of the Cleveland Cavaliers article Vjmlhds 15:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delete What, one Wikipedia article on the Cavaliers isn't enough? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 15:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as last time. The history section at Cleveland Cavaliers is far too long and another editor has already been paring it down to expand this article. The nomination last time was just a few months ago. Little has changed since then, but that in itself is not a reason to delete. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, "word for word copy of the bulk of the Cleveland Cavaliers article" is normal procedure for "daughter" articles like this (and was explained in the last nomination and in the talk page for the Cavs article), though it's not accurate, since it all came from the History section. That was your main reasoning for the last nomination, which ended up being a strong keep. Nothing has changed in that regard in the two months since the last nomination. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per User:JonRidinger. It should be noted that the "History of the Cleveland Cavaliers" is not a "word for word copy of the bulk of the Cleveland Cavaliers article" as the history section Cleveland Cavaliers page was thoroughly compressed before this nomination was made. Frank Anchor^Talk 17:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: While this had no impact on my response, and should have no impact on anyone else's, it should be noted that the nominator reverted the compression of the history section on the Cleveland Cavaliers page immediately before nominating this page for deletion. Frank Anchor^Talk 17:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Follows WP:SPINOFF. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Legitimate WP:SPINOFF of long article. We see this kind of history article for many sports teams, see Category:History of sports in the United States by team and related categories. Also it's not apparent why we are again seeing this at AfD only 2 months after the last discussion was closed as keep. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as a legitimate way to keep the history section of the main article to a manageable size. The nominator seems to have tried to withdraw the nomination by doing this, which isn't the correct way of going about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per all above, as per the last AfD debate. A legitimate WP:SPINOFF of a section of an article that had grown too long to be manageable. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SPINOUT. The content about the team's history should exist here. If there's too much historical content at the article about the team, then trim it back. Based on the fact the first AfD resulted in keep only two months ago and the nominator's reversion I have to wonder if this is a good faith nomination. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as legitimate spinoff. No good reason to delete. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Withdraw deletion request I know when I'm licked. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2016 (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.