Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama Vulcans

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 Keep - There's no consensus and I don't think that relisting it is going to inspire people to give strong opinions either way. Let's err on the side of keeping it. - Richardcavell 02:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alabama Vulcans

Alabama Vulcans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Team played one season as a member of the American Football Association (American Football), which doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, and I can find no indication that the team or league were remotely notable. -Elmer Clark 23:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• CommentSeems to have been a minor league. This page has logos for both the league and the team. Here's a website for a group calling itself the American Football Association, but I don't think it's the same entity - it exists to promote minor league football, but is not itself a league. A google search on the name of the team yields more results than one for the league, but a lot of those hits are Wikipedia and its mirrors. Many of the rest are on the website cited as being the source (under "External link"). This link is some college listing all alums who became pro football players, including several who played for this team. The team seems to get some chatter in blogs and forums, but those aren't WP:RS. I imagine though that sources could be found if someone had a book about the history of pro football or something. The amount of forum and blog mentions leads me to think it might be notable, but one would have to dig to find sources and flesh the article out. Try back issues of sports magazines and Alabama newspapers from 1979 and 1980, books about American Football, etc. I'm inclined to say it's one of those borderline articles where notability is probably present but will take work to find. At the moment though, it's little more than a harmless stub. So... weak keep ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are you finding all this buzz? Google turns up only 30 unique hits -Elmer Clark 00:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and several of those 30 unique hits are mentions in forums and blogs. Not reliable sources, and usually just mentions in passing, but interesting nonetheless. This, for example, is a forum thread discussion the possible demise of NFL Europe. Someone's suggesting that if NFL Europe folds they should bring the teams to the U.S. and suggests cities that could house the teams, including Birmingham. Someone responds with, "Man, that is all Birmingham needs, another pro-football team to fail," and mentions the Vulcans in that context. This is about a different minor league, the WFL folding, and the reaction to Birmingham loosing a pro football team. Again, in passing, it mentions the Vulcans, saying, "The Alabama Vulcans came about in the late '70's as a member of the American Football Association, but this league was not on the scale or caliber of the USFL, WFL, etc. This incarnation of the Vulcans lasted only the 1979 season." Like I said, notability is weak, but I think a case could be made for it. If someone could dig up these books (mentioned on This website, which has some statistics) they might be good sources for expanding the article:

• • • Minor League Football, 1960-1985: Standings, Statistics, and Rosters by Bob Gill, Steven M. Brainerd and Tod Maher, McFarland & Company, ISBN 0-7864136-7-0
    • The Encyclopedia of Minor League Football by John Guy, Bumble Bee Press

But, yes, it is a weak argument. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Despite that the team apparently existed, I just can't imagine this ever being anything other than an unsourced stub. The sources ONUnicorn came up with are problematic because we (1) don't know what's in them, and (2) chances are good it's nothing but some ordinary statistics, which wouldn't make for encyclopedic material. Mangojuice^talk 01:28, 26 February 2007 (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.