Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chattahoochee Valley Vipers


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite 18:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Chattahoochee Valley Vipers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another indoor football team. This one has 52 unique Googles, several of which are Wikipedia articles on other indoor football teams which link back here. None is a non-trivial reliable independent source. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Patken4 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Over 100 g-news hits; even though the team is folding I think it has some lasting notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. They were a professional sports franchise at one point, even if they don't exist anymore.  Patken4 (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as defunct. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football's list of football related deletions.
 * Keep. A professional team playing in a national-level fully-pro league is still notable, regardless of whether or not they still exist. Bettia   (rawr CRUSH!)  09:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment does not address the deletion rationale, which is that the article is unsourced and probably unsourceable due to vanishingly small numbers of Google hits. It's nothing to do with being defunct, and everything to do with the fact that there does not appear to be any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, meaning that any article will fail sourcing policy. We do not have an exemption in sourcing policy for articles on things we like. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * At the moment there's just the one link - obviously that's not enough but it's a start. While search engine hits are thin on the ground, there seems to be enough on oursportcentral to at least make the facts in this article verifiable, together with the archived version of the club website. Lastly, I don't quite know where this claim of me 'liking' the Vipers came about - I'd never even heard of them before today! Cheers, Bettia   (rawr CRUSH!)  11:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: As I have been told many many times in the past, lack of hits on any search engine is no indication as to the non-notability of anything. I vote Keep. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.