Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC Cincinnati (MLS)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 for any proposed change to the status quo. It is not impermissible to have separate articles on successive sports teams that are separate legal entities, provided both meet WP:GNG. In this case, the new team is an existing legal entity, irrespective of whether it has a roster or a record. In light of this, the absence of a clear consensus either for merging or for deletion of the article does not suffice to result in a finding of deletion. bd2412 T 20:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FC Cincinnati (MLS)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

FC Cincinnati (MLS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the same team as is described at FC Cincinnati, just moving up to a new league. Changing leagues doesn't mean that this is a separate team, even if they had to change legal status.

Some key points:

  • In all other sports leagues besides MLS, we do not create a new article when a team changes leagues.
  • In all other sports leagues besides MLS, we do not create a new article when a team legally shuts down and a new legal entity is formed; e.g. Parma Calcio 1913 (shut down and reformed 4 times). We also don't do this for any other type of company outside the realm of sports; e.g. Google (Google Inc shut down 2017 and replaced with Google LLC); Valve Corporation (Valve L.L.C. until 2003), etc.
  • Most reliable sources (both primary and reliable) refer to this as "FC Cincinnati moving up to MLS", not "FC Cincinnati shutting down and a new club forming in MLS". Examples: MLSSoccer.com, Cincinnati.com)
  • There is a discussion at Talk:FC Cincinnati#Splitting article? where the majority of participants oppose splitting the articles.

–IagoQnsi (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A MLS expansion franchise is a completely new team. This team has a different name (Fussball Club Cincinnati vs Futbol Club Cincinnati) and recently announced the branding for the new team, and the official announcement specifically says "the expansion team, which will continue as FC Cincinnati when it joins MLS...," which is not a contradictory statement since it's a new team. We have precedent as well - all other MLS teams which kept their basic branding from a minor league team have distinct splits due to the way American franchises work. The nominator of the AfD was firmly against this in other merge requests (for Orlando and Minnesota), but failed to gain consensus. Other American sports teams (San Diego Padres, Vancouver Canucks, Los Angeles Angels) split their articles between minor and major leagues as well, and this was not a promotion. Finally, two of the votes per consensus on the talk page were "no split, for now" - but now the team has branding, it is no longer WP:TOOSOON. It's a valid split for a new franchise. SportingFlyer talk 00:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, I thought I was creating a draft and screwed up, so I'd like to have this draftifyed if it's WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer talk 00:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team has changed its "official" name, but it was known primarily as FC Cincinnati before and will continue to be known as FC Cincinnati moving forward. The sentence you quoted suggests that the two teams are actually the same team; a team can't "continue" in a new league if it's shutting down. The MLS precedent only includes about ~4 other teams' articles, whereas the precedents I mentioned apply to all other teams in all other leagues -- I think this discussion is a good chance to discuss whether the existing precedent on MLS articles makes sense. For those other American sports teams, I would challenge you to show any reliable sources that refer to the minor and major league teams as the same team rather than as two separate entities. Reliable sources widely consider those to be separate teams, whereas most sources relating to FC Cincinnati refer to them as the same team. --IagoQnsi (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brand can continue. MLS precedent includes the Seattle Sounders, Vancouver Whitecaps, Portland Timbers, Montréal Impact, Orlando City FC and Minnesota United, and for Seattle, Montréal and Portland at least, whether these the MLS teams were new teams has never even been questioned. No USL players had contracts for the MLS team, whereas a "continuing" team would be expected to have had players on multi-year deals. [1] Sassano said loaning players down to USL from MLS required a lot of paperwork. He declined to comment on the combined salary cap hit of the two players for FC Cincinnati's 2019 MLS season. How an a team loan itself a player, if they are the same team? SportingFlyer talk 00:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parma Calcio 1913 did not maintain any player contracts between their shutdowns. What basis do you have for saying "a 'continuing' team would be expected to have had players on multi-year deals"? I know of no Wikipedia policy or precedent that supports this statement. My assertion (that we should follow what sources say about the team), however, is supported by WP:RS. The statement from Sassano about loans is clearly about the paperwork behind moving a player between two legal entities. As I've stated in my initial post, we do not typically consider a team/company to be a new team/company just because they form a new legal entity. --IagoQnsi (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MLS team clearly signed Adi and Alashe and then loaned them back to the USL team. Italy has teams go bankrupt and reform often, and we treat them as the same club. The U.S. and Canada has MLS expansion franchises (and MLB/NHL) use the same branding as a previously existing minor league team and we treat them as new teams. SportingFlyer talk 01:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent points. MLS holds all of the contracts for the players of the MLS franchise while the USL team holds the contracts for their players. I didn't realize that Parma Calcio 1913 was an MLS franchisee. I can point to all sorts of other companies and sports leagues trying to support things that don't apply to MLS, but it wouldn't help. MLS is the company and each "team" is a franchisee. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (But maybe Keep) I would argue creating a whole separate article is kind of confusing since it is still for all intents and purposes the same team from a fan perspective, although I will agree that there is precedent for the article to be split into two. If this does happen though please make the main article (about the MLS team) be titled FC Cincinnati and the secondary one titled FC Cincinnati (USL). Doing otherwise or keeping it how it’s titled now would be confusing for people looking for info about the team. Mjmeck25 (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was nominated minutes after I created it, with the intent on proposing a move after the article was ready to go with the new name, logo, et cetera. Also, why would this article be different than our precedent with the six other teams which "moved up"? SportingFlyer talk 03:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Let's wait until there's enough distinct MLS-only content to spin off into its own article. The two operations are very much merged together at the moment and whatever the USL club had, the MLS club will have for a few months at least. SounderBruce 04:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There should only be one wikipedia related to this franchise. They started in 2015 and made the transition to the MLS. Why would you need 2? That is just super confusing and pointless. The argument of it being a new team is a long shot. I still go to the same website and still pay the same vendor for my season tickets. The history of the club needs to be maintained in the same article. As they are keeping the USL seasons on thier own website as well. Twood06 (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: User:Twood06 is a new editor with few edits. I know Twood06 from a community outside of Wikipedia; he chose to post in this discussion after seeing me talk about this AfD. I did not ask or encourage him to join this discussion, and after realizing what had happened, I told everyone else in the community that they should not "raid" the discussion. I have no intention of using meatpuppets, which is why I'm posting this explanation. –IagoQnsi (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama Why did the Impact keep the same article for USL and NASL but yet get a new page for MLS? Twood06 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Twood06: Because those were the same franchise and the MLS club was a new franchise with the same name. Smartyllama (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Twood06: Same analogy: If the Columbus Clippers (AAA baseball) owners applied for a MLB franchise and were successful, and at their press conference announced the MLB team would be called the Columbus Clippers, that team would have a new article under American sports precedent (for instance, see San Diego Padres). In 2009, the Portland MLS article was initially created as (I'm paraphrasing) "Portland MLS Expansion Team (2011)" until it became clear they were the Timbers, even though the Timbers name was announced at the expansion team launch. SportingFlyer talk 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: Actually just like MLS, NASL and USL teams are purchased franchises. Twood06 (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Twood06: The Impact broke away from the USL in 2009 to join the NASL, they did not purchase a NASL franchise. It's a whole jumbled mess of minor league U.S. soccer history. It's similar to independent baseball - the Winnipeg Goldeyes have switched leagues a couple times, but it was the same team, whereas this is a new MLS franchise. SportingFlyer talk 15:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I don't know about the NASL in 2009, but I know that USL had a $5 million expansion fee for new franchises in 2017 when Tampa Bay Rowdies, North Carolina FC, and Indy Eleven joined (source). No one seems to be arguing that those USL teams are not a continuation of the respective NASL teams, despite the new franchise purchase. –IagoQnsi (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IagoQnsi: Paying the expansion fee isn't the indicator of a new team. USL teams have the right to exit the league after a certain number of years, whereas my understanding is you couldn't move a MLS team to a new league because of the single entity structure. [2] As an aside to this thread you should also read up on the 2009-2010 soccer split if you can, it's rather interesting, and may help explain how the Cascadian teams weren't considered to have "moved up" a decade ago. SportingFlyer talk 01:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NASL did not provide franchises at all. The league was created by the owners of several USL teams (Montreal and Vancouver were founding members even though the latter did not ever play in the league). One of the goals was to give local teams full control of their own operations and for the league to deal with scheduling and the like. It was completely different than the way MLS was run. No clue how USL was run, but the reason that the alternate league was created was to avoid the meddling of the league at the team level, so I can't see it as having a single-owner model the way MLS does. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It pretty much the same argument as not the same team as discuss in WP:Footy. The MLS team clearly more than a namesake according to WP:RS, but it is common practice for MLS team to have a stand-alone article and keep the content of the predecessor in another article. So i am undecided on this case, as the history of the team in MLS will pass WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS and not WP:TOOSOON. Matthew hk (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: A lot of people are arguing against the merge on the basis that we've created a new article for all MLS teams. I'd like to point out that this precedent only exists for 6 articles (Seattle Sounders, Vancouver Whitecaps, Portland Timbers, Montreal Impact, Orlando City, Minnesota United), whereas the practice of having a team keep its article across league changes is much more widespread and is used for most other teams in other leagues. If you're arguing for continuing to do things like other MLS teams, I think you should give an argument for why that precedent is worth keeping. --IagoQnsi (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there's been a decade of consensus this is the proper way to do things, the burden is actually on your side: why should we treat this article differently from the other American sports articles? SportingFlyer talk 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My key points on the matter would be:
  • All other soccer leagues in the world do things this way. Just because American soccer doesn't have pro/rel doesn't mean we should handle this differently. What's more, even when a team shuts down and re-forms in other countries, we don't create a new article (e.g. Parma Calcio 1913). The fans consider all the iterations of Parma to be one continuous club, and thus so does Wikipedia. Fans seem to consider FC Cincinnati MLS to be a continuation of FC Cincinnati USL, so we should consider them to be one singular topic.
  • I don't think the precedent for American teams is "always create a new article when a team changes leagues", but rather, the precedent is "create a new article when reliable sources say it's a new team". I haven't seen any reliable sources that talk about Los Angeles Angels (PCL) or San Diego Padres (PCL) as being the same team as their MLB counterparts. The same cannot be said of MLS teams, or at least FC Cincinnati, where most sources consider the new team to simply be a continuation of the old team.
  • Side note: I think part of the reason that sources choose to do this is because there seems to be a much larger gap between MLB and PCL/MiLB than there is between MLS and USL. MLB average attendance is four times that of PCL (whereas MLS and USL attendance actually overlap -- there are several USL teams outperforming several MLS teams -- and the overall averages are much closer). This is more subjective, but I think people may perceive the skill gap between MLB and MiLB to be much greater than between MLS and USL. In general, I think the news media is treating MLS/USL as soccer leagues more than American leagues, if that makes sense. (This side note is just my opinion/speculation on why reliable sources do what they do -- the point is, we should do what the reliable sources do.)
  • The first teams to climb up to MLS had much longer histories in lower divisions, so there was more of a need to split the articles per WP:TOOLONG. For example, there was definitely a need to have Seattle's 1994–2008 history in a separate article. I would argue that we should have articles "History of Seattle Sounders (1994–2008)" and "History of Seattle Sounders (2008–present)", and the History section in "Seattle Sounders" should provide a high-level summary spanning from 1994 to present. However, this is a semantic difference that I don't think is as big of a deal, so I can understand why no one has brought this argument before (pick your battles, as they say). When we apply this precedent to the newer teams with much shorter lower-division tenures, however, it becomes a lot more silly.
–IagoQnsi (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IagoQnsi: wikipedia don't care what fans want. All wikipedia should care is what is in WP:RS. If reliable source reported that the fans considered and in legal sense they are the same club, then they are the same club. But in this case, it is pretty much "the editorial judgement" on split or merge articles even they are closely related. It is common for company that break down to smaller article after major rebrand and/or change in the scope of their business. So, it rather whatever or not follow other MLS team to have their own sub-article, or just merge together. Matthew hk (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew hk: Sorry, saying "fans consider it the same team" was a poor choice of words. It's not just fans who consider the teams to be the same; it's the general consensus among all sources reporting on the matter:
The consensus among the reliable sources of all sorts seems to be that the MLS franchise is a continuation of the same team. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jay eyem: The Parma comparison is not a false equivalance—Parma formed entirely new legal entities too. In 1968, a court ordered the liquidation of the club, and then in 1970, a different club (Associazione Calcio Parmense) bought the license to the defunct club's name. In April 2004, Parma AC SpA was declared insolvent, and a new club was established as Parma Football Club SpA in June 2004. In March 2015, Parma Football Club SpA declared bankruptcy, and in July 2015, S.S.D. Parma Calcio 1913 S.r.l. was formed. –IagoQnsi (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You misunderstood the point. The point is that the difference between "franchises" and "clubs" is important. The United States does not use a club based system, and franchises that move do not inherit the history of the previous franchises. The same is not true for clubs (e.g. Rangers F.C.). That's why you have that ambiguity and is one of the reasons that the MLS teams that began as lower tier teams have different articles. You see the same thing for other leagues, or at least have an inconsistency e.g. the Denver Nuggets (like I mentioned before). Fans and ownership may claim that they are the same, but that does not make it so. Take a look at the Steaua debate as a good example of this issue and why it's different. Again, I think this is a really silly thing to get hung up on. I think the Orlando City SC article is a good example of how to do it right and I don't see a compelling reason for FC Cincinnati to be an exception. Jay eyem (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jay eyem: We do use a franchise system, but the fact is that reliable sources seem to be treating FC Cincinnati more like a club than a franchise (it is called "FC", after all). Not to mention: what about other franchises? When Tampa Bay Rowdies, North Carolina FC, and Indy Eleven left the NASL in 2017 and 2018, they paid expansion fees to create new USL franchises, and yet, no one is pushing for those articles to be split. It seems to me that it's less important whether or not a new franchise was formed, and more important whether or not reliable sources consider this franchise to be a continuation of the previous one. –IagoQnsi (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth noting that the one time an MLS franchise did inherit a previous franchise's history - the new San Jose Earthquakes after the original MLS franchise moved to Houston - we kept them both in the same article, similar to the Cleveland Browns in the NFL, and split the Houston Dynamo off. If we'd seen something similar happen with the Columbus Crew and Austin FC, I'd support keeping the Crew incarnations together and splitting out Austin, but it looks like the original Crew are going to stay in Columbus at this point with Austin getting an expansion team so that's rather moot. However, another franchise with the Earthquakes name, which competed in several different leagues from 1974-1988, before the founding of MLS, has its own article, which seems to suggest that this is the precedent. With regards to the name, MLS team names are stupid and prove nothing. D.C. United wasn't "united" from anything, nor are any of the other "United" clubs. Real Salt Lake isn't supported by any Spanish royalty. And, for that matter, it's certainly not a "football" club, at least how we define football over here. I do think the distinction between clubs and franchises is rather artificial, but reliable sources that cover the league seem to see it differently. Smartyllama (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, technically Houston was considered an "expansion team" and San Jose was considered "on hiatus" (there was an option contract created as a part of the move? Or some option was granted to Lew Wolff? Sources aren't the easiest to find anymore...) even though San Jose relocated to Houston! See also: Talk:Charlotte_Hornets#Lineage_of_Charlotte_and_New_Orleans_franchises for the NBA - you may be familiar, but for those who aren't: the Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans and became the New Orleans Hornets, two years later Charlotte becomes the Bobcats, and after nine years of being the Bobcats New Orleans "returned" the Hornets name to Charlotte and became the Pelicans! Now the NBA considers the Hornets/Bobcats as "one team" and the Pelicans as a "new team," even though it's revisionist history. But such is life in the world of sports franchises, SportingFlyer talk 10:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Charlotte_Hornets is a more complex case and can't be compared with soccer. Charlotte Hornets case actually had two franchises or spots in NBA, with 4 names (Charlotte Hornets, Charlotte Bobcats, New Orleans Pelicans and New Orleans Hornets). The claim on succession was not quite clear according to the current citation, the treatment on grouping which to which is nightmare. (New Orleans Pelicans and New Orleans Hornets as one group, or Charlotte Hornets, New Orleans Hornets, Charlotte Hornets as one group, or other combination is more suitable?} Also it is pretty much WP:CRYSTAL on assuming every franchise would be suffered from relocation, renaming and the identity crisis. Matthew hk (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison is an American sports comparison, which is applicable to this article - see the Houston/San Jose relocation. The NBA officially recognizes Charlotte Hornets/Bobcats as one franchise and New Orleans Hornets/Pelicans as one franchise, but until 2013 it was Charlotte/New Orleans Hornets and Charlotte Bobcats. History can in fact be "transferred" between franchises. But we're getting into the weeds here, might have to hatnote this :) SportingFlyer talk 11:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Then the scope of the article would be "X is a franchise in MLS, which used the name of soccer club Y original founded in year Z." i don't mind to split if defining the scope of the article on the franchise /spot in MLS. Matthew hk (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @IagoQnsi: Actually Italian system is more complex. Parma FC was established by liquidator of Parma AC, but all means they are the same club, just something change in legal person. While the current Parma Calcio, actually established by claiming a clause of Italian Football Federation. Which a totally new legal person to register as a successor of football record and league position. The new owner can ignore the old club and did not buy anything from the liquidator (which was the criticism of this clause according to WP:RS, actually an inferior new owner to start a namesake and take a free rider on the branding of the old dead club). But new Parma did bought back the training ground and the trophy, as well as according to WP:RS, fans considered they are the same. However, it-wiki are more loose on grouping the successor, which Potenza S.C. and Potenza Calcio are clearly two clubs, and i can't dig out the citation about the true connection except they played on the same stadium, but it-wiki group it and en-wiki did not. To sum up, in en-wiki, Italian clubs and its true phoenix club are grouped in one article, but the original and phoenix club can be very distinctive on assets sense.
Back to US system. franchise is a fancy word which is not well appeared in WP:RS. The MLS team and the original team are way more than namesake and very very near as the same club, only if you argue on legal person point. However, it should based on "editorial judgement" on splitting or merge, such WP:TOOLONG (may be?), or consistency with other MLS team article. Matthew hk (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Only if you argue on US system, is the spots in certain sports league are fixed. Teams can be bought and relocated (and renamed), making the article is about the spot not the club. For example Utah Jazz still kept the history as New Orleans Jazz, also New York Red Bulls still kept the history of MetroStars. Matthew hk (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reliable sources love pointing out that MLS teams are franchises, not clubs. I personally find the distinction rather silly, but we can't go by what I think or what you think, we have to go with what reliable sources say. Smartyllama (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A post related to this article split was recently posted to /r/FCCincinnati, the Reddit community for fans of the team. One user named TheAmplifier posted a comment that I'd like to share: "From a user's perspective, two different articles makes no sense. If I go to FC Cincinnati I should see everything regarding the team and it's history." This seems to be a shared sentiment there, as the comment is currently sitting at 11 upvotes. Per WP:ASTONISH, we should not do things that would surprise/confuse a reader. It seems to me, and to these Reddit users, that having two separate articles would be surprising/confusing to many readers.
Disclaimer: I am an active user in /r/FCCincinnati. However, I did not make the original post, and all of my comments in the thread have included a warning that people should not join this AfD discussion if they are not already active Wikipedians. –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, favoring deletion I agree with following both the fanbase and general media perception that the "FC Cincinnati team", as a whole, is continuing on, uninterrupted, just in a new league. (And the reddit thread cited above is a good barometer of the fanbase.) While there may be contractual reasons why there is a different legal entity and certain player contracts are not continuing, those are mere technicalities. The colors are the same; the management is the same; the offices and stadium are the same; the popular name, web presence, and social media accounts are all the same. Season ticket holders for 2018 were given the same priority for 2019. From a popular, non-lawyer's perspective, the 2019 FC Cincinnati is the same entity and entitled to the same feelings as the 2018 entity. That there is a precedent here for splitting other teams is an interesting footnote, but it would cause less confusion for the average user looking for FC Cincinnati information here if that precedent were abandoned. It should be abandoned. Liffer (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jesus have we really stooped to using a reddit thread as a source? This will literally make zero difference once the team actually begins playing in MLS and this article is moved to FC Cincinnati. You don't see Orlando City or Minnesota United or Seattles Sounders fans etc. complaining about this. Jay eyem (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I felt the same about the Timbers article ten years ago, but I was wrong. The leap to MLS was huge, and you've seen this play out with FC Cincinnati's new name change and brand. I've added the notavote template. SportingFlyer talk 23:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I'm not familiar enough with the Portland Timbers to say if that was the right call or not. Readers are less likely to be looking for info on the pre-MLS days as time goes on, but that doesn't mean it should be entirely separated. A big point I'd like to make is that the transition will most likely be much less drastic for FC Cincinnati than for most previous expansion teams. The FO has been running MLS-level marketing campaigns and drawing MLS-level crowds. The local news followed the team very closely and their coverage felt more comparable to the attention they give to the Reds and Bengals (the other major league teams in town) than to their coverage of the Cyclones or UC/Xavier college sports. This is anecdotal, but to those of us in town, moving up to MLS just feels like a logical step forward, not a big leap. –IagoQnsi (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome: Why is it WP:TOOSOON? They even have three players on their roster, and most other MLS expansion teams have received articles as soon as they've been announced. SportingFlyer talk 22:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know other bad stuff exists in Wikipedia. This is practically a certainty considering how big the English Wikipedia already is and how bigger it is getting by the day. Plus, I do not believe we can fix everything. This is why the community has accepted (see WP:OSE) that one article that should not have been created in the first place cannot be used as an justification to have another, similar article in Wikipedia. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Despite the legalese, this is WP:OR. WP:RS cover this as the same team moving from USL to MLS. The clincher for me is the discussion in the media about the Hell Is Real game being advanced into a real rivalry, not as a separate relationship between two MLS teams, but as a continuation of the history between the two teams. Maybe this will change as FC Cincinnati establishes an MLS tradition, but not yet. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FC_Cincinnati_(MLS)&oldid=1068876581"