Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkansas Razorbacks basketball, 2000–2009


 * 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. Tone 22:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Arkansas Razorbacks basketball, 2000–2009

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article has no text whatsoever. It's just infoboxes and schedules; Wikipedia is not an almanac. I've moved everything of value to the season articles anyway, and I'm not fond of this whole decade-basketball history thing anyway. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 19:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Given that: 1. There is no common link between these seasons beyond the decade (e.g., a period defined by a single coach); 2. Season articles exist for each included season (and taking EDDY's word that all the content is duplicated there); 3. There is no prose tieing it all together (perhaps a symptom of #1). cmadler (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant, but the nom's statement that Wikipedia is not an almanac is false. Of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, the very first sentence clearly states, "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What needs to be dont to make this article more acceptable? Can it be looked at as a "what can be done" instead of "list why the article is deficient"? Brandonrush (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. This article has a fundamental flaw: there is no reason to prefer the 2000-2009 grouping over other possible groupings, and in fact, at least one other possible grouping makes more sense. Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball is broken up by head coach (1986-2002, 2002-2007, 2007-present), and if Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball is to have multi-season articles short of a complete List of Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball seasons, it would probably make more sense to group that way rather than in arbitrary groups of ten years of YYY0-YYY9. cmadler (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant to the season articles. Tavix | Talk  20:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I know it's a different sport but take a look at the list of Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Bob Davie which provides way more useful information and is much better under coach then decade. Don't know if I remember the notability guidelines since I haven't been here for awhile but I think single season articles that advance in the NCAA/NIT tournament are notable and all others fail wikipedia's notability guidelines. I would propose doing an AfD on single season articles that Arkansas did not advance to the NCAA/NIT tournamen; then group all the other seasons by coach on a new page providing season summaries for each season and for a season summary that has a single season article, provided the main template. Hopefully this will reduce redundant information in many places. Reorion (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2010 (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.