Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Watson


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 04:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Rodney Watson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Coach of questionably notable team. No sources. Coaches aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC) **(A) Why is so-called "notability" relevant? (B) Assuming it is (which it's not), how is the head coach of a perennial powerhouse in D2 Men's Basketball not "notable" by any reasonable standard? (C) Only direct quotes and contentious statements need to be sourced; what direct quotes or contentious statements do you see in the article? Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! : 14-0) 14:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Coach of an annual powerhouse in NCAA D2. Sources are only necessary for direct quotes or material that is being challenged.  Nominator has a history of antipathy towards me that suggests this might be a bad-faith nomination.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! : 14-0) 16:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike: Violation of community editing restriction. Kmweber is not allowed to make edits to the Wikipedia: or Wikipedia talk: namespaces. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 01:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N and WP:RS standards and Kurt Weber "Why is notability relevant?" comment which leads me to believe article creator agrees WP:N hasn't been met but just simply doesn't think it's that big of a deal as well as obvious misunderstanding of how/why/when reliable sources need to be used. Nefariousski (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of notability. At least hurry up and find sources. As much as possible ought to be sourced. Şłџğģő  22:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally respond to strongly held beliefs like A with a question: If you could put odds on it, what would be the odds of me changing your mind about anything? I would put those odds at zero. If you're honest, you would, too. Based on that, what's the point of replying with any substantial defense? I'm not going to convince you to change your mind, and vice versa. Should we really go back and forth a dozen times just to prove that? (FWIW, I never disputed point C.) Şłџğģő  15:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. I'm not seeing the significant coverage from reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 6 March 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.