Jump to content

Talk:Dean Smith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleDean Smith was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 16, 2006Good article nomineeListed
November 29, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 30, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 1, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 14, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 20, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
January 31, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 8, 2015.
Current status: Delisted good article

Photo

[edit]

Has to be a better, legally useable picture than the snarling photograph (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/DeanSmithcropped.jpg/220px-DeanSmithcropped.jpg) in the right sidebar. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add one if you got one.Remember (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching tree--MJ

[edit]

Hi all- It reads a little strange to me that under "Coaching Tree" Michael Jordan is simply mentioned as "majority owner of the Charlotte Bobcats." I understand it's his current association with basketball, but I'd think he's most notable as a six-time NBA champion, NBA five-time MVP, or even (as stated on his nba.com bio) "the greatest basketball player of all time." Some other members of the tree have more-notable past associations listed first, some have current associations listed first. (Cf. Brown, Doherty, Lebo, Cherry for some comparison of how current vs. previous activities are variously listed.) Nitsua60 (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Losingest coach in ACC history

[edit]

Someone keeps adding the stat that Dean Smith is the losingest coach in ACC history. This is a section to discuss this addition. Remember (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How should the AFAM scandal be handled here?

[edit]
Resolved
 – This Feb 9 edit seems to have staying power—Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lately there have been attempts to mention - citing this article - the AFAM scandal. Quoting from the linked source, "According to the Raleigh News & Observer, UNC men's hoops players were responsible for 54 enrollments in sham classes under Dean Smith (1993-97), 17 under Bill Guthridge (1997-2000), 42 under Matt Doherty (2000-03), and 117 under current Tar Heels head man Roy Williams (2003-11)." (That article is misleading, since the actual article reports: "The investigation concluded that under Smith, there were 54 player enrollments in AFAM independent studies courses, though the report noted it was impossible, due to record keeping then, to tell then which of those enrollments were in legitimate independent studies and which were not.") Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the graduation rate is what it is. We can't take away graduations because of fake courses, unless the university starts to systematically declare some of the degrees "invalid". This should be in some way mentioned, though. I honestly haven't followed the UNC fake course story closely enough to know what Dean Smith's level of culpability is, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source [1]
"The latest in a series of university-sponsored investigations revealed that over 18 years—from 1993 through 2011—some 3,100 students took “paper classes” with no faculty oversight and no actual class attendance. Almost half the students enrolled in the phony courses were athletes. Many of the basketball and football players “were directed to the classes by academic counselors” assigned to advise athletes, UNC said in a written statement. “These counselors saw the paper classes and the artificially high grades they yielded as key to helping some student-athletes remain eligible.”
"In other words, to keep members of UNC’s top-rated basketball team on the court, professional “counselors” encouraged flat-out academic fraud."
ergo, the 'graduation rates' are bogus if the data inputted is bogus. 74.79.246.70 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Graduation rates are verifiable and concrete. These "sham" courses may delegitimize the graduation rate, but that's not for us to determine. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even the Raleigh News & Observer, known for bringing the UNC academics/athletics scandal to national attention (with some stories being stretches of logic), had to concede, even though "the scandal began during Smith’s final years as a coach": "No evidence surfaced showing Smith knew about the scheme." Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also think there should be a brief mention of the scandal, but it should be neutral and treated with due weight.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the cited articles (http://www.newsobserver.com/2015/02/08/4540165/former-unc-coach-dean-smith-died.html) states: "Crowder did not begin converting classes advertised as lecture-style into no-shows until 1999, two years after Smith retired, the Wainstein report found." Furthermore, while the cited articles point out that these classes stretch back to Smith's tenure, none actually link any of his players to the easier classes. I'm not sure why these additions were made before the final ruling and judgment come out on the case...especially when they're based upon speculation.[User talk:thawhiteshadow:|talk]]) 10:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article10265399.html#storylink=cpy

References

  1. ^ http//www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-10-22/unc-admits-fake-classes-for-athletes-were-widespread
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Dean Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dean Smith/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Leaving this at a B, because it still needs some things before it can be A (or nominated for GA), but you're close. Take a look at WP:CITE and redo the citations to conform to that guideline. Also you have a "peacock" sentence in the lead: "He has been recognized as one of the greatest coaches in American sports history" - by whom? Great job, though! Just a little bit and I'd nominate it for GA...plange 03:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was given GA status through GA review. I have since revised the biography rating.

Last edited at 18:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 13:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved back to the status quo. It has been determined here that "Dean Smith" is the basketball coach's common name and that the basketball coach is the primary topic for the name "Dean Smith." -- Tavix (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Edwards Smith → Dean Smith – This page was moved without discussion and against WP:COMMONNAME. The college basketball coach has always been recognized as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name, hence Dean Smith (disambiguation) exists. I want this page moved back to where it has always been. – – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu and Doug Coldwell: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contested: There are many Dean Smiths, so there has to be a Dean Smith (disambiguation) per MoS. One can not be favored over the others. The first line in the lead for Dean Edwards Smith describes him as Dean Edwards Smith (February 28, 1931 – February 7, 2015). It doesn't make any difference how he was known in college basketball. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The college basketball coach is the primary topic based on article views and news coverage, hence it should be "favored". Well, article views will now be a problem since the article is much harder to find, as nobody knows him by his middle name. This was a controversial move that should have been discussed, as adding one test pilot to the list of other "Dean Smiths" should not have negated the status quo. This should be undone, and a move discussion initiated if you feel strongly about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it was moved back to favor the coach as 'preeminent' then there would obviously have to be a WP:hatnote to the Disambiguation page. There are lots of "Dean Smith"s in wikipedia. Or the article could be renamed to Dean Smith (American basketball coach). Which at least tracks the way most of the other Dean Smiths are treated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and just went ahead and moved his name to Dean Smith (American basketball coach) as it should be. Most of the other Dean Smiths are identified in this manner.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I undid that, as it had the effect of hiding this discussion, among other things. Dicklyon (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I support the hatnote option, which happens to be the status quo. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I alphabetized the athletic names in the disambiguation page, and coincidentally the coach is now first in that subsection of the list. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine and all, but I still think he shouldn't have a disambiguator as the primary topic for "Dean Smith". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primary topic among basketball fans, likely. But many people have no interest in basketball. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google searches and page views (though I haven't checked the latter) back up that he's the primary topic of "Dean Smith's", period. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Page view stats - "Dean Smith" (which was the coach's article) received 5890 views (295/day) from June 30 - July 19. Hard to say how many hits were people looking for others. By comparison:
  1. Footballer, born 1971 - 1281 (66 views/day)
  2. Australian politician - 633 (32)
  3. Actor - 577 (29)
  4. Dean Wesley Smith - 221 (11)
  5. Athlete - 211 (11)
  6. Decathlete - 66 (3)
  7. Racing driver - 62 (3)
  8. Footballer, born 1958 - 58 (3)
  9. Engineer - 30 (2)
  10. Canadian politician - 7 (0) Rikster2 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – There seem to be at least 12 notable Dean Smiths, and no convincing rationale for primarytopic has been presented (or even attempted). Dicklyon (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move back to "Dean Smith" Help me understand why this Internationally known, Hall of Fame basketball coach is NOT the primary topic, as was the case until recently? If after that discussion it needs to be moved in favor of "Dean Smith" as a disam page then let's have that conversation then. This was NOT an uncontroversial move. Rikster2 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the man was never known publicly as "Dean Edwards Smith" so that page name is wholly inappropriate per WP:COMMONNAME. Rikster2 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer if no consensus "Dean Smith" was the longstanding title for this American basketball coach until it was boldly moved by Doug Coldwell on July 20 [1]. Per the policy WP:TITLECHANGES: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Therefore, the title should revert back to "Dean Smith" in the event there is no consensus in this RM.—Bagumba (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to "Dean Smith" – One of the winningest men's Division I college basketball coaches in history, a Hall of Famer, and easily the primary topic, there is no chance he was ever known as "Dean Edwards Smith". By the way, Doug Coldwell, the reason his middle name is bolded and included in the first sentence of the article is because that's how all biographies are supposed to be written. It doesn't mean that's what his common name is. There are literally tens of thousands of biographies on Wikipedia where the middle name is included in the lead but not in the article title. I mean, we're talking Wikipedia Biographies 101 here. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – There seem to be at least 12 notable Dean Smiths. Apparently Dean Edwards Smith was known as an American basketball coach. I never heard of him before. Perhaps then Dean Smith (American basketball coach) would be more appropriate for him for the title for his page. That would then follow the pattern already set as to all the other "Dean Smiths" that are in the Dean Smith (disambiguation).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you do a Google search and see that 99% of the results were for the basketball coach? I can appreciate not having heard of him, however he is the primary topic by virtue of media coverage/Google in a similar way to how Tony Curtis and Dan Brown are primary topics with others using a disambiguation. Dean Smith is not just another basketball coach, he's one of the most accomplished and famous in history. Rikster2 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - First, this move should have been reverted so that a proper move discussion could take place:
Second, Dean Edwards Smith fails WP:COMMONNAME as mentioned above. Third, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the basketball coach is the primary topic of "Dean Smith":
  • Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere:
  • Wikipedia article traffic statistics - see comment by Rikster2 above. 295 visits per day to the coach versus 167 per day for the other topics combined
  • Usage in English reliable sources - A Google search (even with &pws=0) and a Google Books search both are overwhelming in favor of the basketball coach here. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 23:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for procedural reasons (to revert an undiscussed move) and on the merits as argued by others above. —  AjaxSmack  00:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on a strong majority of page views, number of page links relative to others, and Google search results—especially with Google Books. The two opposers to date include one weak argument that the basketball coach can't be primary topic if the !voter didn't know of him before, and another that presented no evidence to challenge the previous status quo of the basketball coach being the primary topic.—Bagumba (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On page views and links it's more like a "bare majority" than a "strong majority". Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we agree it's about a 2:1 ratio?—Bagumba (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And about 4:1 between Smith the Coach and the next most prominent "Dean Smith" Rikster2 (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move back to Dean Smith. He is absolutely the primary topic. (Honestly, I have no idea how such an experienced Wikipedian could make this error in the first place - it's certainly one of the more unexpected no-consensus moves I've seen.)  ONR  (talk)  00:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 6 external links on Dean Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 8 external links on Dean Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Dean Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Dean Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page the main Dean Smith, this seems USA-centric?

[edit]

Coming in peace to hopefully learn something about page naming. As a UK-based editor I feel quite confident saying that this Dean Smith is almost unknown in the UK. I have looked at the page view stats for the past year and Dean Smith has 152,600 compared with the soccer coach Dean Smith (footballer, born 1971) who has 167,700. There are a number of other Dean Smiths listed at the Dean Smith (disambiguation), if you total 2018 views they come to 185,000 vs Dean Smith's 167,700. I am currently not clear though why someone searching for 'Dean Smith' gets jumped straight to this page and not the disambiguation page. My gut reaction is that this Dean Smith should have a (basketball) after his name or similar. I may be wrong, this is not an area I claim expertise in so I'm posting here to hear views on this. This is one graphing I used to compare views this year: [2]

I have looked at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidance and it notes: that two major aspects that editors commonly consider are these:

  • A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
  • A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

Based on these bullets it seems that Dean Smith cannot be considered 'much more likely than any other single topic, as shown in my graph plot above, he was the second-placed 'Dean Smith' article in terms of views in 2018. However, Dean Smith does seem to have more weight on he second bullet as he had a very long and successful college basketball coaching career and won numerous awards and records. However, it is my opinion that this is a fact known to USA audiences mainly (he was not an international sport coach). Please let me know your views? I'm just opening a discussion and not proposing any move at the moment. Mountaincirque 13:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main argument for the basketball coach would be "long-term significance" and his induction into the Basketball Hall of Fame. Additionally, he is also the only "Dean Smith" listed at Encyclopedia Brittanica.—Bagumba (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed he coached the US men's team to an olympic gold in 1976...bizarrely this isn't noted in the lead or main body, only in his honours and info table. This makes him more notable for an international audience I feel. I just searched Encyclopedia Brittanica for Jose Mourinho (arguably one of the world's most famous soccer coaches), no entry, it is highly USA-centric. Mountaincirque 13:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Dean Smith is a HUGE name. If it makes you feel better, most Americans wouldn't know Bobby Moore either, but it seems appropriate to me that he's the primary topic given his importance to world football. Dean Smith has a similar stature in world basketball - he is one of only a couple of American coaches in the FIBA Hall of Fame, changed the game in many ways that are still felt today, and his death was front page (not front sports page) news in the US. I don't think it is compelling to compare a coach who died five years ago (and has been retired for more than 20) to an active football manager with respect to page views. Active individuals (regardless of discipline) always get more views. The "problem" (which isn't really a problem, just a fact) is that the UK has zero interest in basketball, which is different than North America, Australia, Asia and many countries in Europe - where Smith is very well known. Rikster2 (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It’s funny, less than an hour after I typed that I was watching a national news program and one of the guests referred to a politician who is trying to ride out some bad press until tomorrow’s election by saying “it’s like Dean Smith’s four corners offense” (an offense aimed at draining time off the game clock). Everyone on the panel knew what he was referring to. Rikster2 (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your insights, he does seem to be a big cultural figure. I don't necessarily agree that Dean Smith would be known globally though, having worked in Asia (Thailand, India, Nepal, Cambodia) and Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Ghana), English football has by far the highest status, basketball not so much, if at all. Maybe in 30 years another Dean Smith will have risen to equal prominence to justify changing the title of this page, but not for today then it seems. Mountaincirque 12:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe your view of basketball is UK-centric? Food for thought. I worked in England, I know your country doesn’t care about the sport. I take it you haven’t worked in China, Japan, the Philippines, etc. where basketball is either the top sport or closely followed? My point was that, generally, the US doesn’t care much about football (at least not that kind) so a lot of very prominent footy figures aren’t known here, which is analogous to your view of Smith and other basketball figures. I would say English footy is now getting more prominent due to the rise in American tv packages, but the figures of the past aren’t generally known. Rikster2 (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I acknowledged that readily in my first post, I'm not trying to put basketball down by the way, just asking a question on why someone from a very popular (but mainly one-country sport) is the WP:PRIMARY above others. Sorry I just don't prescribe to the view that Dean Smith would be known to many people in Manila, Tokyo or Beijing, only among extreme fans and those above a certain age (as he retired in 1997). Mountaincirque 14:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the primary topic?

[edit]

I searched for 'Dean Smith' on Wikipedia. This is not the article I expected to arrive at.

It appears that I am not alone in being a little surprised by this. Indeed, the page for the Dean Smith that manages Aston Villa F.C. in the Premier League has received more hits in 9 of the past 12 months (including the last 8 in a row). Per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, This is one the main criteria to be considered when determining whether one page or another should be regarded as the 'primary' page. Searching for 'Dean Smith' through the modified Google Search string also returns an overwhelming number of results concerning the Aston Villa manager. I think it is fairly clear that there is, at the moment, WP:NOPRIMARY topic, and that this page should be disambiguated accordingly.

I have linked to this discussion on the talk page for the other Dean Smith mentioned, and in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. Domeditrix (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start a WP:RM if you want to move Dean Smith to Dean Smith (basketball) and Dean Smith (disambiguation) to Dean Smith. GiantSnowman 14:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am at the point where I am OK with Dean Smith becoming a disambiguation and this one moving to a “basketball” DAB. I don’t think it is surprising that a current figure gets more hits than a historical one, and I think American people and British people think of different subjects when the hear “Dean Smith,” but at least the Aston Villa manager is clearly a significant figure. Rikster2 (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As above. It seems the current Dean Smith article is the owner of long term notability. Dean Smith of Aston Villa is the owner of current popularity as he's not dead and is gainfully employed. One is likely to be searched for within the US only, while one will gather interest from England primarily. In both cases it may be worth changing the disambig prompt at the top to "This article is for the American basketball Coach, for the English football Coach see Dean Smith, for other people with the same name see disambig" and vice versa. Koncorde (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Caution There are links from numerous pages which points to Dean Smith at present. If someone is thinking of moving the Villa manager to the primary target, the links from the articles will not point to the right version if we don't check what currently links to the page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the respective hatnotes as mentioned.—Bagumba (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concur on long-term vs current significance arguments. In 2017, views justified the basketball coach as primary, and he was already dead. Since, the football manager has been in the Premier League, and gets more views, but not overwhelmingly. Too soon to tell if he'll have enduring significance when he retires.—Bagumba (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this person will no longer have any impact on the actual sport and the others are not as popular in terms of worldwide research. The current Aston Villa manager has not had worldwide notability since he has not played with any top division side at the time of the contracts. As what someone else has said about the WP:RM, this should draw in more users to give their views on the discussion. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 March 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Pageviews are not sufficient to determine a lack of primacy, so clearly the only primary topic criteria the basketball coach has is long-term significance. However, no argument that he doesn't have enough "long-term educational significance" managed to win a consensus. It is evident that there is no consensus here that he does, either. (As an aside, these cross-oceanic debates on significance can be very heated at times. Kudos to everyone here for being highly civil.) (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– As far as I can tell, at this point in time, it is difficult to make a strong case that this page, the Dean Smith of basketball, ought to be considered the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY doesn't set out a strict test, it does indicate some important data that ought to be considered. One of these is page hits. The page for the Dean Smith that manages Aston Villa F.C. in the Premier League has consistently received more hits [3] over the past three years. Another data point worthy of consideration is whether an internet search turns up an more results relating to one potential topic. Searching for 'Dean Smith' through the modified Google Search string results in both topics coming up, with no clear winner, indicating that there is WP:NOPRIMARY. The proper course of action when there is no primary topic is to disambiguate, and allow the disambiguation page to claim the 'main' title. Following what is set out in WP:NCSP#Basketball, this article would then be moved to 'Dean Smith (basketball)'.

Remember, per WP:NWFCTM, our goal is not to astonish readers, nor is it to put to the fore the article that we think is more worthy. Nobody doubts that Dean Smith is a legend of basketball, but it's increasingly clear that many readers are not looking for this article when they search for 'Dean Smith'. Domeditrix (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Dean Smith the active footballer getting more views right now than Dean Smith the deceased basketball legend is WP:RECENTISM, and a bad metric to use for determining who is the primary topic. You mention recent article views, but not the "what links here" test, where Dean Smith the footballer has 397 incoming links and Dean Smith the basketball legend has 1,279. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't an active footballer, he is an elite level coach in the world's most watched sport league. Dean Smith (basketball) being the main article rather than a disambiguation page is an example of US-centrism, as per WP:Systemic bias. Mountaincirque 12:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an elite level coach if you have a career win % under 40%? I realize you are talking about the level of play, but seems like just another guy. Rikster2 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was making a point that being a coach in the world's most watched sport league (across all sports and continents) is elite. His trophy cabinet isn't bulging but his media coverage and page views are huge. Mountaincirquetalk 16:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mountaincirque, how is this systemic bias? You're applying your own bias in pushing the footballer. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing, I'm not pushing the footballer, I am happy to say honestly that this Dean Smith is more notable historically than Dean Smith the football coach, that doesn't mean that Dean Smith (basketball) deserves to be the primary topic, that needs to be justified. The key point is how big that difference in notability is. It's clear objectively from the page views on these pages over the past 4-5 years that they are very comparable. Which means the logical thing to do is make Dean Smith a disambiguation page. I'm struggling to understand why this is seen as detrimental to anyone and would only act to make the encyclopedia easier to navigate. Mountaincirquetalk 16:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair, I think I forgot that this was a "no primary" proposal. That said, I think there's a big enough difference in the notability of a legendary basketball coach versus a football manager who is fairly standard for football managers. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that debate on John Lewis does look quite traumatic. I'm quite easy going really, I just think generally that there's no harm having no primary article when you have cases like this, but maybe I shouldn't go down the bias rabbit-hole. All the best :) Mountaincirque 13:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - page view data on all biographical pages including Dean Smith are available here: [4]. Mountaincirquetalk 17:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These page views only go back to 2015, recentism is at play. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Another potential indicator of how 'global' renown is (versus its perception, given that we all have our biases) may be the number of non-English language versions of Wikipedia that the article has a page in. For Dean Smith the basketball coach, that number is 15 (+ an article in the Simple English Wikipedia).[5] For Dean Smith the football manager, that number is also 15.[6] Domeditrix (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC. Dean Smith is probably in the top five most famous college basketball coaches of all time, while I follow English football and could not have told you Dean Smith managed in the Premier League. Still, I am convinced some readers may be confused if this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, though I also relate to the recentism argument - if Villa fire Smith, does the basketball coach go back to being the primary topic? SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per recent monthly views on the graph Mountaincirque provided. More people are focusing on the current Aston Villa manager these days. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at present the lasting notability is still with the current Dean Smith. Until such time Dean Smith (footballer, born 1971) is just another Premier League manager. Temporary popularity is established but not as yet long term relevance any more than Stuart Gray, Frank Clark or Chris Coleman etc. Additionally, hits for Dean Smith (manager) will be skewed heavily by WP:RECENTISM, particularly related to statistics being updated each week. Koncorde (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - no PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 08:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on long-term significance per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: ... with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. The only entry on Brittanica is for the basketball coach. A Google Book search only shows predominantly hits for the basketball coach, not the football coach. The basketball coach has been dead since 2015, yet still maintains ~600 views/day. —Bagumba (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that Brittanica (headquartered in Chicago) doesn't even have a page for Aston Villa F.C. (Smith's club and founders of the Football League), so it is no test of notability. It is an awful resource for football frankly, there is barely anything on there, even some of the world's most decorated managers like Pep Guardiola and Jose Mourinho don't have entries there. Your point on Google Books is factually incorrect also, for example after a quick search: [7] (Routledge Handbook of Elite Sport Performance), [8] (Mentioned in Neil Warnock's autobiography). Mountaincirque 11:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to identify another general purpose encyclopedia. Brittanica is not a sports encyclopedia, so it's all the more significant if a sports figure makes the cut. I tweaked my comment re: Google Books to say that the hits are "predominantly" for the basketball coach. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Encyclopaedia Britannica, it seems that inclusion in the realm of sports at least is based far more on nationality than notability. That's the only explanation I can conceive for why there would be an article on Landon Donovan[9] but not on Ronaldinho (FIFA World Cup winner, twice FIFA World Player of the Year) nor Luís Figo (FIFA World Player of the Year winner, formerly the most expensive football player of all time). Perhaps it speaks for your own Americentrism if you so readily believe that such a US-centric source accurately reflects global notability.
As far as books, people have simply had more time to write them about a man whose career began in the 60s and ended in the 90s, than for a man whose career is still ongoing. Using this metric when one of the figures under discussion is alive today is problematic – on that same basis, a hypothetical proto-Wikipedian might well have argued in November 2000 that, seeing there are far more books referring to George H. W. Bush, it is that page which ought to appear when somebody searched for 'George Bush'. Domeditrix (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as books ... what are they good for, right? Haha.—Bagumba (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow what a comment. ...a man whose career began in the 60s and ended in the 90s, than for a man whose career is still ongoing shows the WP:RECENTISM at play in this nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That one person was born more recently or has become more well-known more recently doesn't mean that WP:RECENTISM applies, see the George Bush hypothetical previously. Here's a fun experiment to see whether people in Dean Smith's position stay in the collective consicence after ceasing to be Aston Villa F.C. manager: I've put the names of the eight previous Aston Villa managers that do not currently manage a team into a tool that allows to see page hits over the last 3 years.[10] As we can see, this page far from stands out, sitting below four former managers, and above four more. The argument being submitted here is purely that this page is more worthy. Per WP:NWFCTM, this is not a justification for failing to disambiguate.
Is there a single other page on this encyclopedia that is not disambiguated despite it very clearly not being the page that users are looking for? Domeditrix (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 May 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was:

  • The supporters of the move, some of whom just happen to be passionate football fans, suggest that the football coach is just as notable as the basketball coach so no primary topic exists.
  • The opposers point out that the Basketball coach is more notable in the long-term and argue for it to be significantly more notable overall.
  • Even though the number of people who registered support for the move are more than the ones who registered opposition, it seems that some of the arguments proposed in favor of the move were readily rebutted and opposed with statistics.
    This page is Not Moved due to lack of consensus to do so. (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 12:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Between this and the current Leicester City interim coach, the pageview analysis, https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=wiki.riteme.site&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2023-04&pages=Dean_Smith%7CDean_Smith_(footballer,_born_1971)%7CDean_Smith_(footballer,_born_1958)%7CDean_Smith_(pilot)%7CDean_Smith_(Australian_politician)%7CDean_Smith_(sprinter)%7CDean_Smith_(actor)%7CDean_Smith_(racing_driver) , shows there is less that 100,000 views between both the basketball and the interim coach so I don't see a standout primary topic among the Dean Smiths on Wikipedia. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support very common name, no primary In ictu oculi (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. No clear primary topic for this name. The safest bet is to have the disambiguation page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Page views are not the best way to determine long-term significance. The interim coach is getting a view spike, and the basketball coach is deceased. Far more pages transclude to the basketball coach than the others. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No primary topic here by page views or long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am curious about the reasoning about long-term significance. There is a clear difference in the historical significance of the basketball coach in his field relative to the other subjects of the same name with articles. Rikster2 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Muboshgu. The basketball coach clearly has more long-term significance than the football manager at this point. Rikster2 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per the proposer. As Premier League football has a much more global audience compared to baseball I think it fair to make this move to disambiguate. Mountaincirquetalk 14:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you mean basketball and not baseball. Also, the basketball coach has a bit more views than the football coach.—Bagumba (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on long-term significance per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

    ... with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

    The only entry on Brittanica is for the basketball coach. A Google Book search only shows predominantly hits for the basketball coach, not the football coach. The basketball coach has been dead since 2015, yet still maintains ~600 views/day, and a bit more views than the footballer.—Bagumba (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - no PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 18:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Don't forget that a number of users hitting the Dean Smith basketball coach page will actually be looking for the football manager because they've just typed in "Dean Smith", so the page views are likely to be skewed. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good point considering people don't know when the Leicester Dean Smith was born. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...a number of users hitting the Dean Smith basketball coach page will actually be looking for the football manager...: The data does not support that theory. Wikinav shows that Dean Smith was not among the top 10 incoming sources for Dean Smith (footballer, born 1971), meaning that there was at most 147 clicks there from "Dean Smith" in the last recorded month—less than 5 views per day.[11]—Bagumba (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the first time I have ever used this feature so I don't know how the 147 clicks gets to be the figure for April. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like the data got updated since my post. So April shows 654 views from "Dean Smith", so ~20 clicks/day out of the basketball coach's ~700 views/day avg. —Bagumba (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Before today, I'd never heard of the basketball coach but it's clear he has a very strong case for being the primary topic. Interestingly, from the page view stats quoted in the request, the spikes in views for both the football manager and the basketball coach do not correspond to a spike in views for the other which would imply the current disambiguation works to direct readers to the article they want. Had both articles spiked at the same time, it would suggest the basketball coach (as currently the PT) was an unnecessary click between the reader and the article they want to read and that's not the case. At the moment, the football manager doesn't have the long-term significance that the basketball coach does, maybe one day he will have but per WP:CRYSTAL Wikipedia does not predict the future. Now is not the time to move the article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems too generic a name to just have one guy own the non parsed page. lot of dudes on that redirect. in regards to the football manager, it seems odd to claim hes only relevant recently. pro player from 1989-2005, pro coach 2005-2011, pro manager from 2011-2023. thats 34 years of him working professionally in the worlds most popular sportMuur (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the US we would call that a “journeyman.” Good enough to work around his sport for a long time but not good enough to make much of a mark in its history. The basketball coach is considered one of the best basketball coaches in history. In short, you could easily write a history of the Premier League without ever mentioning that Dean Smith. You would have a hard time writing a history of the sport of basketball (let alone college basketball) without including that Dean Smith. Rikster2 (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just find the insistence that he's only an interim coach to be annoying. even if he wasn't currently leicseter boss hes still notable for the prior 36 years. Muur (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The basketball coach is considered a legend and clearly has more long-term significance than the interim coach. Alvaldi (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1,808,122 v 1,714,348 views isn't much of a gap and if you look at all not just the 1971 footballer its 1,808,122 v 1,970,643 for the others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dean Smith was also the manager of Norwich City F.C and Aston Villa F.C. in previous Premier League seasons, so to say that he is only the interim Leicester City F.C. manager is disingenuous. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, the football manager he is has a broader career besides his current interim job. He seems to have had a decent but unspectacular career as both a player and manager. The basketball coach however is in the FIBA Hall of Fame, the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, the National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame, was the head coach of the United States national team that won gold at the 1976 Summer Olympics, won two NCAA Division I championships and was the Naismith College Coach of the Year in 1993. And despite not having coached for 26 years and having been dead for the last 8 years, he still has the most views of any Dean Smith on Wikipedia. There is no denying that he has much more long-term significance than the current football manager. Alvaldi (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only, I suspect, if you're an American basketball fan! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp Then exactly why is he in the international FIBA Hall of Fame which was established by FIBA and honors, amongst others, coaches who have greatly contributed to international competitive basketball? Alvaldi (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. I really don’t think there is much argument against Dean Smith the basketball coach being a more significant historical figure than Dean Smith the run of the mill football manager. Unless you are a British football fan! Seriously, don’t bring up American bias if you can’t appreciate that basketball is a world sport that doesn’t happen to be popular in your country. That’s UK bias. Trust me, cricket has zero profile in the US but you can bet if we were discussing a highly influential historical cricket manager and comparing him to, say, Vinny Del Negro, I would listen. Rikster2 (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certainly not saying the football coach is more notable. I'm saying there is no clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In your original !vote above, you have not responded to the query regarding long-term significance being met.—Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also the past 3 sections in this talk page, which is all about the same topic: Talk:Dean Smith#Why is this page the main Dean Smith, this seems USA-centric?, Talk:Dean Smith#Is this the primary topic?, Talk:Dean Smith#Requested move 4 March 2021. 73.168.5.183 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment people's issue seems to be thehy thikn theyre trying to push the footballer as more notable, but no its to have neither as the main page not the manager as the main. in regards to this basksetball coach, it seems to be college level. its not even professional? its college, not nba. why is being a college basketball coach at non pro terms making him so much more notable than a guy who has had a pro football career for 36 years?Muur (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    College basketball is quite popular in the United States. There's only 29 NBA teams in the country, but there's 100s of universities, many with strong alumni support and local fans, esp. in areas without a pro team (and most of the country doesnt have one). It's a misconception of outsiders to write it off because it's "non-pro". The basketball coach's page views, even with him being dead for years, reflects that. —Bagumba (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Muur Firstly, professionalism doesn't always equal more notability than amateurism in sports. Secondly, don't let the amateur stamp on the the US college basketball game fool you, it is a multi-billion dollar industry and the NCAA Division I is one of the strongest basketball leagues in the world. The main push here is to try to make it seem that the football coach and basketball coach are somehow equally notable and thus neither of them is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But they aren't equally notable. Because one is a run-of-the-mill decent player and coach who is getting views as an active manager in a popular league while the other is recognized by a major international sports federations as one of those who made the game[12] and is still the most viewed Dean Smith despite having not coached for several decades and been dead for several years. Alvaldi (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Muur I think your comments were in good faith but please do a little research on college basketball in the US. It is covered like a professional league and gets the same attendance/viewership numbers. Dean Smith’s UNC program is one of the most successful and followed to this day, largely because of the foundation set by Smith. Rikster2 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy to tell you aren't from the US! College basketball is a lot bigger than you think. In 2022, the men's college basketball national championship had 17M viewers while the final game of the NBA Finals had 14M viewers. UNCDrew1 (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I feel that for people born in the last 30 years, the basketball coach will decline (slightly) in relevance over time. The tough thing about this situation is that the footballer seems to be an unspectacular player turned unspectacular coach. He could fade into a role out of the limelight in which he becomes less relevant and without a significant legacy. I just don't think he will fade into a role in which the basketball coach can attain a dominant enough percentage of the views to be a well-established primary. For a 5 year period he has not been the PRIMARY topic. Despite any personal opinion as to the relative significance of the subjects, I suspect a large percentage of the basketball coach's views are people looking for the football guy and he still is not getting a dominant percentage of the views. The readers for the last 5 years are now not finding a subject that is useful to them when they pull up the subject at Dean Smith. For the sake of the contemporary reader, the suggested changes should be made.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect a large percentage of the basketball coach's views are people looking for the football guy and he still is not getting a dominant percentage of the views: The actual data says that in April, there were 21.2K views of Dean Smith, the basketball coach, of which 654 then clicked out to the footballer's page, or ~3%, not a "large percentage".—Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Muboshgu Wil540 art (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm not seeing a lot of statistical evidence to suggest that there's actually a confusion that requires a move, and most of the arguments in favor seem to be underestimating just how prominent Dean Smith is to college basketball, as well as the prominence of college basketball compared to what most know as "amateur athletics." -fuzzy510 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, given the large number of people sharing this combination of a relatively common given name and the most common surname in the English-speaking world. BD2412 T 01:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a red herring how "common" the individual name parts are, when the rest of the Dean Smith's (outside of the Big 2) only get ~100 combined views/day. —Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dean_Smith&oldid=1252197782"