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 of the debate was Keep. No point letting this particular debate carry on any longer. kingboyk 13:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Barnes[edit]

article does not assert the subject's notability Where ^{(talk) Let's debate to get consensus on T1} 04:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Though very little info is provided on him (bio, prior head coaching positions), he is the head men's basketball coach at a Division I school in a major conference, and has had success (one Final Four appearance). This would be considered noteworthy IMHO. We simply need more Wikipedians to expand the article (photo, other info). 160.147.240.6 17:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree, we could have the expand tag on the page and make efforts to expand and apply notability to the page. I'm sure that there is some importance behind this page. Shawn 04:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the article, of course, needs to be expanded, it is, I think, settled that coaches of "high-profile" sports teams at major U.S. universities are notable, whatever one may now think about that determination (see, e.g., Steve Alford, Dick Bennett, Bo Ryan, and Billy Donovan, to list four). Joe 04:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable college sports coach. dbtfz^talk 04:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I know little of college basketball, but if the Longhorns play in the NCAA tournament every year, (and they're still alive in this year's) their coach is notable. Fan1967 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course, if they screw up my bracket by failing to win the tourney, then I'll vote delete :). Joe 04:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand notable coach --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I expanded it some, it now claims notabily --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Changes look good. -- Vary | Talk 04:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable enough to be wiki-worthy. Bucketsofg 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, a coach for a consistently highly ranked Division I team is definitely notable. Or are we about to delete Lute Olson, Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, Bill Self, Jim Boeheim, Jim Calhoun... ? I'm actually quite surprised the article didn't exist before today. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep University basketball coach seems like a notable position to me. Hbackman 06:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, if this team has a large enough following. Lankiveil 11:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Did a quick google, got a few interesting results on google news that seem to verify his notability. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' as clearly notable. ProhibitOnions 13:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep; even in its most primitive form, the article asserted notability, and tagging an article-in-progress on an obviously notable subject one minute after it was created should be treated as obvious vandalism.

• Comment Even as I believe the article, in its first iteration, to have been sufficiently clear as to the notability of the subject (at least to an American user), I can't abide the suggestion that to have nominated the article for deletion was to have committed vandalism. Nominations for deletion, generally, I think, inamsuch as they abide by process, are not to be considered vandalism; to make a suggestion to the Wikipedia community as to the proper disposition of an article and to await the reaching of a consensus by the community writ large seems nearly diametrically opposite to vandalism. Moreover, notwithstanding that I think the provisios as to what is vandalism are too exclusive (they do, of course, seem to reflect a consensus of users, though), the "What vandalism is not" section of WP:VAN would surely seem to include such tasks as tagging an article for deletion under the (mistaken) belief that its subject is non-notable. Finally, I don't think that the tagging of an article one minute after its creation is anything about which to be upset; whilst one may think it best for him/her to wait for an article to develop, surely such waiting is not necessary and can be counterproductive (non-notable bios, hoaxes, etc., quickly disappear from "new pages" and are picked up by Wikipedia mirror sites, incentivizing the creation of such pages). The worst-case scenario, of course, in this case, would have been that, in the absence of an expanded article, the Barnes article was deleted; someone might easily have recreated it, then, and simply added information sufficient to establish notability on the first edit. Joe 22:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Terence Ong 15:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ok. I'm confused. This guy works at a college right? He also happens to coach a bunch of kids that go to that college?? It may be cos I'm a Brit but that just don't seem notable to me! Could someone please explain? Jcuk 23:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC) + *Keep.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- **Certain college sports are pretty big here, basketball being one of the more prominent. (Games are televised, and teams can have thousands of fans, some of whom often aren't even associated with the college for which the team plays.) And (according to Kinu) Barnes is a coach for a Div I team, which is the highest and most prestigious division in the NCAA. Hbackman 01:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - ***See also Current sports events, where NCAA sports are often featured. Joe 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Comment My question and the responses to it seem to have been removed at some point, am putting it back in, as it might help non americans have a meaningful input into this (or similar) discussions. Jcuk 08:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:33, 21 March 2006 (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.