Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NBA playoff series

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA playoff series

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

A case of WP:NOTSTATS. It also duplicates information that can be found at respective teams' pages. For example, List of Milwaukee Bucks seasons (NBA), List of Los Angeles Rams seasons (NFL), List of Atlanta Braves seasons (MLB), List of Montreal Canadiens seasons (NHL), Indiana Fever#Season-by-season records (WNBA). – Sabbatino (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nothing has changed from the conversation eight years ago about the NHL article. All numbers used in the NHL article can be found by clicking on any team name here [1]. All of the subsequent articles are based off of the NHL one. I haven't verified the accuracy the MLB, NBA, NFL and WNBA articles. Deadman137 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A link [2] to the previous review that was listed for the same reason and the article was kept. Deadman137 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything that was said there. Nothing has changed since. Jmj713 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely WP:NOTSTATS. This is not a good way of presenting this information, which can be found on any number of other relevant pages. Verification is not the issue. Like Deadman137 said, all you need to do is go to the team's page to see how they've done in the playoffs. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not actually true. You cannot, at a glance, go to a team's seasons page and ascertain how they've done historically in the playoffs. You would need to pull out some spreadsheets or a calculator, at least, and potentially browse additional pages for games played against an opponent. Can you tell, at a glance, which team they're historically never beaten or have always played well against? Which team have they played the most games against? Jmj713 (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. This is a very useful overview of a league's playoff matchup history. Jmj713 (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful list that can be easily improved with more sources. --Yoonadue (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exhaustive repeat of information already in each repective teams' season lists. WP:NOTSTATS is applicable, as these stats have relevance to an individual team, not as a monolithic listing for an entire league.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I'm going to push back against you and the other delete votes. Please explain how these lists that utilize a set and fixed inclusion criteria are indiscriminate? Also why have none of the delete votes addressed the WP:LISTPURP issue, as all of these lists meet that criteria?

For a topic expert such as myself that knows where to find the supplemental sources I could manage future content with ease. However, anything from the past becomes much more of a time waste without these lists. As we recently saw in the just completed playoff series between the Edmonton Oilers and Winnipeg Jets relying on inexperienced editors to be able to differentiate between one relocated franchise (Arizona Coyotes previously the Jets) with the same name as an existing and separate franchise is unlikely and bound to wind up disrupting the people working on these articles. These lists do help to reduce editing conflicts when they arise. Deadman137 (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deadman137: I don't follow how certain editors being confused about incarnations of the Winnipeg Jets is solved by duplicating content already in List of Winnipeg Jets seasons and List of Winnipeg Jets (1972–96) seasons.—Bagumba (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is important and its the best place to get information on every playoff game in each of these league. You should keep them all. Vinnylospo 09:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the nominator is misreading WP:NOSTATS as I don't see how these articles are inconsistent with it. They are readable and formatted well. Sourcing could be improved, but WP:RS should be abundant. Hocus00 (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a frequent user of this article for the NHL playoffs, I use the stats from these lists to showcase the number of series two teams have had against each other. The issue with deleting these pages would be more work to count the number of series between teams. Also, because there have been multiple relocations of teams across each of the leagues, it makes it harder for us editors to find these stats. Finally, I don't exactly see a violation of WP:NOSTATS. Perhaps it's slightly redundant with each team and their own seasons, but I feel each of these articles simplifies the process of finding how many series a team has against another team. Same with any defunct teams for that matter.Conyo14 (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing a lot of comments that these articles are all repeat information, which is simply not true. For example, if you want to see the history between the Los Angeles Lakers and Phoenix Suns, you would need to go to each teams' respective pages and manually find each year they have met in the playoffs via Ctrl+F or scrolling. You would also not have access to the total games, winning records, or comparisons to total matchups to other franchises. This is helpful info to have available on hand as opposed to the manually counting that would be required if the pages didn't exist. Agree that improvements could be made with sourcing, but does not justify deletion. Michaeld76 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominating these articles for deletion is absurd. These articles collect a summary of information for each playoff series and it provides a sufficient amount of information for what readers would expect to find in a highly organized manner. And that's obviously what we want. This isn't a duplicate of information, so it's unclear why these articles have been labeled as such. The articles for the teams do not show all playoff series, they have to click on a separate article to see that individual team's season-by-season record. Note that I said season-by-season record because it shows more than just postseason results. The title of the article follows "List of teamx seasons". However, these lists of playoff series articles collect only the playoffs. So, it is in no way a duplicate of information. The way that these articles are constructed is useful. A reader can click on a team and see their playoff history supported by a beneficial legend. In addition, the articles dive in depth to show more stats and history of team A winning compared to team B winning over team A and so forth. So I don't at all see any '"copy-paste" here. Remember, this encyclopedia serves as a summary of a topic, and the playoffs for NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB, and others is definitely a topic of interest. Fizconiz (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Prior consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records was the a team's itemized record listing by opponent was not notable for a standalone list. It would seem to follow that an even larger listing for an entire league—not just an individual team—would also be non-notable.—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit disingenuous to claim that consensus was reached on one college level team when you're comparing it to four of the largest sports leagues in the world. While at the same time ignoring previous consensus that stated that these types of articles are not indiscriminate. You and I have both said our piece in this discussion, it's time that we let others have their say. Deadman137 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

disingenuous: WP:AGF. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These do appear to violate WP:NOTSTATS, but they're also something you'd expect to find in an sports encyclopaedia, there is at least some value in including all the information in one page, and they appear fixable (by adding sourced prose.) The question, in my mind, is how to make them NOTSTATS-compliant instead of removing the information. SportingFlyer T·C 10:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for adding prose to each team's entry, briefly describing their playoff history. I am always for more information not less, and certainly not outright deleting useful information. Jmj713 (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN and WP:GNG with extensive coverage in third party articles. Inclusion of these particular list articles makes Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Notable list topics. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michaeld76 and Fizconiz. If a reader wanted to know how many times the Montreal Canadiens have played literally any team why would you force them to go to the Montreal list of seasons and parse through 85 playoff seasons? This is a summarization from 31 (soon to be 32) lists, not a duplication of a single list such as how List of NHL overtime game sevens was. Tampabay721 (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Notable topics and useful information conveniently summarized in a single article. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 22:39, 16 June 2021 (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.