Talk:List of teams with the highest winning percentage in NCAA Division I men's college basketball
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Why is this article even here? edit
I'm going to suggest deletion or merger with List of teams with the most victories in NCAA Division I men's college basketball. 98.165.151.225 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- You already suggested it elsewhere, and people did not agree with you.
There is no good reason to merge the two. That has been discussed fully on the other article's page, and the consensus was against it. Don't try to restart, here, something that didn't go your way elsewhere.
It appears that the person who soundly lost this same argument (for good reasons) at Talk:List of teams with the most victories in NCAA Division I men's college basketball seeks a second bite at the apple here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.4.25 (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Q. "Why is this article even here?" A. Because it has good, useful information that does not belong on any other page. You are welcome.
Agreed. The list contains an inaccurate account of wins and losses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.202.13 (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
This page has got it too. This needs to be cleaned up. 75.210.119.206 (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- The cited sources appear fine to me. Quit whining about a non-issue. The page is better when updated with current statistics, not left a year behind as you would have it.
The way to clean it up is to add the end of 2010 NCAA stats report to the win-loss records on the ESPN site or any other similar credible source, as was done on the all-time wins page.
Historical win-loss records through the preceding season plus current season win-loss totals equals credible and adequately sourced material, not OR. The goal of this site is to make credible, useful information available, not to nitpick good articles for foolish reasons. Give it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.4.25 (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The page is better with up to date information. It is well sourced. Get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.16.187.230 (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)