Talk:All-American Basketball Alliance (2010)

Oops.
Ok, I'm googling around here and not finding much other than the initial Augusta Chronicle report and assorted republications and rephrasings. I can't even find a website for this thing. Fished in? /blahedo (t) 02:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What we need more than anything is a photo of 'Moose' Lewis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.142.152 (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was not able to find a photo of Moose Lewis, but I was able to find quite a lot of other material on this topic, which I added, expanding the article sixfold. This article is now too long to be classed as a stub, so I've removed the stub notice. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Harlem Honkies, etc.
An anonymous editor added five of what were supposedly going to be the names of the first teams in the league, including "Harlem Honkies", "Braxton Braggs", "Charleston Chews", etc. The same editor subsequently removed those names, leaving the article as it had been before. Was this a test edit or a joke on the editor's part, or were the names possibly real? I'm not sure. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoax?
This is also being reported in the Weekly World News. Could that be the original source and this is all a big hoax? matt kane&#39;s brain (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Weekly World News (like The Onion) sometimes does print true stories, if they are sensational enough. So just because something appeared in the WWN, does not mean it is not true. Also, because of WP: CRYSTAL, we can't speculate in the article whether it will turn out to be a hoax; we can only go with the information we already have, in the sources we already have. The truth will trickle out eventually, I'm sure. Personally, while I myself find the concept ridiculous, I don't think it's a hoax; there is quite a large market for this type of thing. I know online polls are not scientific surveys, but on one of the news sites, 50% of those polled said they thought the AABA was a good idea; also, nearly half of the comments left on these articles are from people who appear to support the idea and who hold racist views towards blacks. There is still quite a lot of bigotry in the country even today, unfortunately, and sports fandom is no exception (for an example of what I'm talking about, see ). Stonemason89 (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another reason why I don't think it's a hoax is because, well, it's several months too early for April Fools. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only that, but the NAACP is taking it seriously. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Colored People"?
User: Dabomb87 recently copyedited the article and, in so doing, changed the phrase "anyone of color" (which was present in the original source) to "colored people". I'm not entirely sure if we should use that phrase, given that it is sometimes regarded as offensive. Any thoughts? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another user has changed it to "people of color", which in my opinion is a MUCH better phrase to use. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't change wording from the source because you think another phrase is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.76.202 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say this is a case where a direct quote is appropriate, because the word choice of the league's founder is relevant to the reader's overall understanding of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Plaintalk2010's edits
These appeared to be promotional material and/or advertisement, so I reverted them. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Questionable notability
Not clear to me that this publicity stunt that has zero chance of getting off the ground or playing a single game will ever meet WP:EFFECT or WP:PERSISTENCE, but I'm willing to let it play out before making a deletion nomination under WP:NOT. THF (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is, the article is about an organization, not an event. I'm inclined to say it is notable right now, especially since two mayors have had public reactions along the lines of "not in my city (if I can stop it legally)" to the league. Of course, like you, I'm willing to re-evaluate after it plays out. —C.Fred (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thing is, this article has already been DYK approved, so it might be hard to make the case that it isn't notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That says more about DYK than it does about this article's notability. THF (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Name of article
Is it the "All-American Basketball Association" or the "All-American Basketball Alliance"? Article name says one thing, opening paragraph says another. THF (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's "alliance". Fixed. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Should this be in Category: White supremacist groups in the United States?
User: Tom Danson recently added this article to ; I reverted this change because I'm not sure if it's appropriate or not. While the idea behind the organization could be described as technically "white supremacist" (and it most certainly is racist), I'm not sure if it's really appropriate to include this subject in the same category as the likes of the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Stormfront, et cetera. When most people hear the phrase "white supremacist group", they immediately think of the KKK, neo-Nazis, etc., not all-white basketball leagues. This basketball league is certainly a very weird organization, and it is discriminatory. But it's not a hate group per se, since its primary focus is on playing basketball, not on demonizing minorities. Still, I'd like a second opinion on this matter. Should this be included in or not? Stonemason89 (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No. It's a separatist group, to be sure, but I don't see any indications of white supremacy involved. Or, indeed, anything other than a publicity stunt that almost certainly will flunk WP:EFFECT.  The article will be deleted in six months when nothing further happens after the initial flurry of press releases that have already happened, so it's really not worth wasting editors' time in an RFC.  Wikipedia editors need to be more mindful of WP:NOT and recentism: there are thousands of articles about undeniably notable subjects that need substantial work, yet there is so much wasted effort compiling press accounts of a hey-isn't-that-weird story that isn't remotely encyclopedic.  Just because you saw something on the tv news doesn't necessarily mean there needs to be a Wikipedia article about it.  Yes, create articles about the 2010 Chile earthquake (but for God's sake write it so that it doesn't sound like a play-by-play); no, have some patience and wait and see if there's any there there before creating this abomination. THF (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Should this be in List of basketball leagues?
Given that it never happened, I'd say not. In fact, I'm not sure we should have an article on this subject at all - it seems to be a bunch of media hype about something which was obviously never going to happen. However, it was kept at AfD in March, so I'll wait a little while before nominating it again. Robofish (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)