Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Basketball Association

United States Basketball Association

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.

Result: Non-consensus (non-admin closure) as the issue will be re-visited in a few months. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am requesting this page be deleted as it is about a basketball league that has been delayed for four years now. The only sources on the league are press releases on the league which means it doesn't meet WP:N. Much of this article is self-promotion. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Duane Allen Jenkins, President of the United States Basketball Association, Inc. I request that you do not delete the United States Basketball Association article. The person requesting deletion could be a competing basketball league. We are a Georgia corporation. We have been plagued by attacks from people such as the individual requesting deletion. We have hired coaches and we have negotiated arena rental agreements. The economy is a factor in my decisions. It is not true we have delayed the opening for four years. This is a total fabrication. I do need help conforming my article. Our first season was scheduled for April 2009. The economy forced a delay in our opening. If you delete this article you are assisting a competitor. We own each team and we supply the funding for the entire operation. My primary question is, Why is this individual so concerned about the United States Basketball Association and not other basketball league who place articles on Wikipedia. What is this individuals real purpose? This person has change our article in an attempt to do harm to my company. I have sent wikipedia an email to help me conform my article to meet your specifications. Please have someone answer my request at the email address sent to you on March 29, 2010, so I know this person is someone you approve to help us and not this individual who appears to wish to harm the USBA. {User: usbaball} 30 March, 2010

Delete: This league has consistently postponed their inaugural season. It has had no leases with any arenas and little if any verifiable content aside from their website. This league is little more than vapourware (i.e. a website and not much else). As an aside, I am not affiliated with any other basketball league. I'm not "picking on" the USBA or anything else, it fails the rules of Wikipedia and thus should be deleted. If any other basketball league fell in the same boat, I'd support a deletion of it as well. Also, as Duane Jenkins mentions above, he is the founder and President of the league. But he wrote his own article, which in itself violates the self-promotion rules on Wikipedia. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sure that many of the regular participants in deletion discussions will recognize that I often put lots of effort into finding sources, but Mr Jenkins's comment above has convinced me that it's not worth expending any effort on this article, as it makes it clear that this article is spam. I would advise Mr Jenkins that by accusing people of conspiring against his association he his making himself look ridiculous, as the vast majority of Wikipedia editors and readers have never heard of it, so wouldn't have any reason to take part in such a conspiracy. Try to get an objective perspective on your level of importance. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Basketball Association decided to pospone the 2009 basketball season due to the severe nature of the American economy in 2009. We have written agreements with the colleges and venues which will house our basketball teams. This individual who states were have no signed rental agreements is wrong and he is a sample of individuals who make unsupported statements about the USBA and our private business. The Arena Football League (AFL) posponed their season as well. The AFL is owned by individuals who own National Football Leagues teams. Are you going to delete their article as well? The Continental Basketball League postponed their season until May, 2010 their original date to open was April 10, 2010, are you going to delete their article. Why is the USBA under such srutiny from the critics? Our investment to fund the United States Basketball Association is coming from my private resources. My inexpierence to correctly construct a Wikipdia article should not exclude me from sharing the information about the USBA to basketball fans or the inquisitive. The USBA is a for profit business and has every right to post an article on Wikipedia. Why are critics, who have no investment in my company, so insistant about the elimination of our article. I make the statements about a conspiracy, because since day one of my interest in minor league basketball, one bloggers web site (oursportscentral.com) has printed lies, accusations and mistruths about me and the USBA. I own several companies. I have many clients. I have an excellant reprutation with Chamber of Commerece and better Business Business Bureau's I've owned my own businesses since 1978. I have never had such resistance as I have since my introduction into minor league basketball. Instead of critcizing me and the article why won't you point your intellect toward me and help me conform this article to meet Wikipedia specifications. [User: Usbaball] 1 April, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usbaball (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has any "right" to post an article on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Wikipedia is a web site owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which has the right to decide what is published here, and has, except in certain cases where they may be legal implications, delegated that right to the community of editors. If you want to convince anyone that we should have an article about your association then drop the paranoia about conspiracy theories and explain why this is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. The guidelines for whether this is the case are explained here and here, and basically mean that we will accept articles on subjects that have received substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, such as articles in established newspapers that go beyond simply reproducing press releases. If you can point us towards such coverage then I will be more than happy to support retention of this article. I would add that this discussion is about the United States Basketball Association, not about the Arena Football League or the Continental Basketball League. If anyone (including you) thinks that those leagues don't meet our guidelines then separate deletion discussions can be started for them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Haha, pretty funny stuff with the guy claiming to be the "President" of the league. i suppose if we nominate a John Mayer song for deletion then someone posing as John Mayer will give us paragraphs as to why not to delete the article for reasons not told in the Guideline? Haha. Str8cash (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if usbaball is in fact involved with the org, they would know of any press coverage, including coverage of their delays in starting. i have no doubt that IF this was a notable business start up, there would at least be local press in its hometown, around it starting or not starting (jobs lost or made, etc). since the article has no references, even to (cut out and posted on his office walls) newspaper articles that the user could provide names and dates for (we dont need urls for every reference, and god knows WP will allow good faith addition of sources without rigorous checking of each inline citation to a page in a reference book), then the business is not yet notable. even a spectacular failure of the business, with lawsuits and recriminations, would be notable (though i doubt they would want to add that material).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep with a major rewrite: The USBA discussed above is not the first to go by this title, it seems.[1], [2]. That fact that it is a proposed league that may never go forward doesn't preclude an article if its had sufficient coverage as a proposed league, e.g., [3], [4], [5]. But it hasn't had a huge amount of coverage.--Milowent (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i dont think the info provided by milowent is enough to change my "vote" above to keep as of this moment, but i will say that now that we have a third party reference for a start date of april, i wouldnt be opposed to letting a lean article stand to see if some reportage is found this month. if it really starts, or really barely starts, but gets coverage about this, by end of month, i would easily say keep. otherwise, i stand with delete. can we delay this decision, or is that gaming the system?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I would like to withdraw this as the new changes seem to change the problems related to WP:N. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I would suggest, based no my current reading of the debate, is that you could close as no consensus default to keep without prejudice to renomination in a few months time.--Milowent (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Morenooso (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nom just withdrew though?--Milowent (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with milowent. we can review this in a few months if necessary.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will go ahead and close this as no-consensus. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:55, 7 April 2010 (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.