Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Keady coaching tree

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 Merge to Gene Keady. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 15:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Keady coaching tree

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

This list fails WP:GNG. It also violates WP:LISTN since this coaching tree as a group has not been written about. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Uproot and transplant tree to Gene Keady. It is talked about a little bit in Sports Illustrated ("And his coaching tree is one of the farthest-reaching in the sport -- 10 of his former assistants and players now have head coaching positions, including seven in Division I."), The News-Gazette, and IndyStar, and the coaches are listed in the Purdue basketball official site. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I thank Clarityfiend for providing clarity above and listing the best sources for this article. At the heart of this matter is whether "Gene Keady coaching tree" is notable; not Gene Cready, and not the individual members of the "tree." Following the general notability guidelines per WP:NLIST and WP:GNG, that requires significant coverage of the "coaching tree" in multiple reliable sources as described in WP:RS. For purposes of establishing notability the sources must also be independent of the subject, which eliminates the Purdue basketball website. The two best articles (Indianapolis Star & Sports Illustrated) listed by Clarityfiend are about Keady and his current job, with only incidental mentions of his coaching tree. The only article directly on point (News-Gazette) is a smalltown paper in east central Illinois. That's one reliable source in a small market with significant coverage; that's not a strong basis of notability under WP:GNG. There may be other coaching tree articles worth saving (Bobby Knight, anyone?), but this is not it. A simple list of the coaches in the tree can be incorporated into the Gene Keady article. Otherwise, delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first option sounds reasonable. I'm changing my lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with uprooting the tree and moving it to the main entry on Gene Keady. Similarly notable coaching trees for other hall of fame college basketball coaches (Dean Smith, Rick Pitino), as well as impressive coaching trees in other sports (Bill Walsh) appear to be included in the main entries on the individuals rather than as separate entries. gdog13cavs (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most coaching trees are incorporated within the parent article with good reason: like this one, they cannot survive the test of the applicable notability guidelines for a stand-alone article per WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. This list could be cut by 80% or more, with a bare list of names and current positions held incorporated into a single section of relatively small size within the parent article. Nothing hard about it. Accordingly, I have changed my vote above to "merge" to accommodate the "uproot and transplant" sentiment above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2014 (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.