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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Aliens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article on sports team does not have multiple independent, reliable sources of non-WP:ROUTINE coverage to justify a standalone article per WP:GNG. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH for an organization. WP:NOTADVERTISING for this team seems applicable. The article has been tagged for notability for a month and only one trivial mention in an independent source has been found. The article was on a coach did not even take the job on the team, and WP:CORPDEPTH says to discount "routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel." Proposal to merge with general ABA article was not accepted by a keep proponent. The ABA is a second-tier basketball league with minimal independent coverage outside of company press releases. While the league might be notable, the teams are not automatically notable as evidenced by the lack of coverage in his case. —Bagumba (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly, merging sounds like a good idea...spare us the incivility and we'd be willing to talk. Tom Danson (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice has been placed at previous discussion Talk:American Basketball Association (2000–present)#Merge expansion team articles as well as any prior participants not already in this AfD —Bagumba (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. What do you have against the Aliens, who have been more active in the community than various other teams you turn a blind eye to? Why is this the only AfD I'm seeing here??? Why do you want to tear down the house while it's still being built? Tom Danson (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a strong argument. Please present source that support the notability of this article. Based on the consensus here, we can determine how to proceed with any ABA team articles with similar circumstances as this one. Also, I do not understand your advising a "Strong Keep" when you earlier said "merge" was a good idea above. —Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is my first choice...but I'd rather merge it than delete it. Tom Danson (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My theory on this is without third party coverage, the Atlanta Aliens (and honestly a good portion of ABA teams) are not notable. Simply paying $10,000 to buy a "team" from the ABA, does not impart notability. A Google News search only comes up with 1 mention of the Atlanta Aliens and that is a passing mention because their initial head coach has joined the Moncton team of the National Basketball League of Canada. I would say once there is third party coverage, the team does not pass WP:GNG and therefore fails the notability test. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If it hits the court then create it. But until then we generally don't create articles for potential franchises. -DJSasso (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the team has been named as a franchise, it wouldn't be crystal balling. For sport franchises, (example) an article about a proposed NFL team in Los Angeles would be crystal balling since no such team has been officially announced, only rumored and suggested outside of their league. Of course, lack of actual news about this team is the real problem with the article. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A franchise being a "product" of the league, CRYSTAL does say "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." With the ABA track record, it can't be assumed this team will ever play games until it happens (and some independent source covers it)—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are a couple of small news releases to do with the organisation of this team (have added a couple of references). It is obvious that there will be many more in the very near future. For the sake of a couple of months it seems pointless to delete or merge it. I recommend keeping this article about a team that is clearly supported by the American Basketball Association.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that this league in particular names about 20 expansion teams every year and only about 2 actually end up playing. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. OurSportsCentral.com no longer covers the ABA "due in part to its inability to publish and play a schedule and the transitory nature of many of its teams."

• The press releases added are not independent as they are generated by the company or people hired by the company. This would also apply to the advertisement for cheerleader tryouts.—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. No prejudice to recreation if they actually play some games ans start garnering coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2011 (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.