Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota United FC (MLS)

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. The article's subject is found to be notable, per it being a seperate franchise in the MLS. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota United FC (MLS)[edit]

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

This is based on the fault premise that this team is in the same situation as previous teams, primarily Seattle, Vancouver and Portland and Orlando. However those teams changed name and other aspects when when they came to MLS. That is not the case with Minnesota. Seattle and Vancouver are prime examples of this while Montreal had no name change and was forced based on previous examples. MLS's franchise model does not mean that the previous companies/clubs cease to exist, only that they entered a different legal agreement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Orlando City SC (2010–14) and Orlando City maintained the same ownership and name across the two leagues. Not quite sure what you mean by "Montreal had no name change and was forced based on previous examples", but it is a similar situation with two articles, Montreal Impact and Montreal Impact (1992–2011). Plus, the management has indicated that they'd like to keep most thing intact, there was no guarantee. While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason to keep an article, it seems obvious that we need a broader discussion about how to deal with teams promoted to MLS. Mosmof (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Should apply to Orlando City as well then. The exception of Seattle, Vancouver and Portland should not become the rule. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - separate franchises merit separate articles. Giant Snowman 18:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GiantSnowman. – Michael (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Mosmof and GiantSnowman. — Dale Arnett (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Separate franchises. Team are not promoted to MLS. New expansion franchises are granted to ownership groups. KitHutch (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - for that matter I don't know why we have two separate articles for Montreal Impact or Seattle Sounders given they both had same (or partially same) owners, players, staff, and names as the previous iteration that played the year earlier. Nfitz (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have separate articles for those pages is because they're separate franchises. – Michael (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many counter-examples though. How about Newport County A.F.C, which was reformed from scratch, played in a different city for a while, had different ownership, managament, and name. Isn't it even MORE than two separate franchises? Montreal and Seattle had same logo, fans, owners, management, staff, offices, stadium, etc., etc., etc. Just a different league, and different legal structure. Nfitz (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They did not have the same logo. As a matter of fact, they didn't even have a name when they were formed at first. We have got to stop playing it like these teams were promoted to MLS, because that's obviously no where close to true. You can have the same name, owners, fans, etc. But the fact that Minnesota formed an MLS team that is of course to begin play in 2018 while the NASL franchise is still in business for another three years, that's enough to tell you why we need separate pages because they're not the same. Merging the article will cause massive confusion. – Michael (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your case is that they don't have the same logos? Compare the USL logo and MLS logo. Yes, the other two teams (thankfully) changed logos - I'd mercifully forgotten how horrid those old USL logos were! Vancouver Whitecaps website claims they were founded in 1974. Portland's website mentions their first season in 1975. And Seattle's website notes the team was born in 1974. And if you look at Montreal's website it says they started in 1993. These are clearly the same teams, and suggesting otherwise in the articles may violate WP:OR. Perhaps Minnesota is a different case ... I'd have to dig more. But it's pretty clear that the Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, and Montreal articles should be merged.

The reason we have different articles is at one point someone decided that Seattle's team needed one. When Vancouver and Portland entered the league the case was made that it was a precedent based on Seattle and that's how's it's gone. Franchises is BS smoke screen. The clubs/companies still exist as separate legal entities and when the league collapses, we're faced with mess to clean-up since many of the clubs will continue to exist and field teams, but since they are no longer franchises, we have to relocate the old articles and create new ones, or resurrect the pre-MLS articles.

I continue to edit based on the current consensus, but am one of the only editors who reverts the many changes indicating the Seattle, Vancouver, Portland, Montreal and other clubs started when the teams were founded. I sure wish those voicing their opinion that we have separate articles because of some made-up franchise idea would carry the weight when it comes to maintaining that lie. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made-up franchise idea? I'm sorry but that last part made absolutely zero sense. They formed a team that won't begin play until 2018 while their current team is still playing in the NASL for another couple years. That's two different teams. So saying that we're making stuff up here is absurd. – Michael (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: My case is the MLS teams didn't have a name when they were formed and the USL teams were still playing. Besides we already have pages containing the history of teams like the Timbers, Sounders, etc. But again my point is the USL teams were still playing while the MLS clubs were formed kicked off two years later. That's not the same. You're also referencing the NASL teams who folded in the early 80's. – Michael (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The gap from the NASL period is interesting, though Portland and Montreal have continuous histories. There was never USL and MLS teams playing at the same time. Yes, the ownership of the USL team had announced than an MLS team would be formed, but in that period, it was literally the same person providing information about the current USL operations and future MLS operations; that's far more than you see in articles for many European teams with a single article that were completely reformed by different people after folding. Whatever case was made for having separate articles for Portland, Montreal, Orlando, Seattle, and Vancouver expired years ago - just like Rangers newco was eliminated when it was clear the new team was the old team. Nfitz (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the arguments for keep and delete, but Rangers newco isn't a good analogy here. They're the same club because the new Rangers filled a Rangers-shaped hole in the Scottish football pyramid. In North America, the major league and the second tier are entirely different structures with different business models. Mosmof (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - what about Newport County A.F.C. then. Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction I'd make with Newport is the difference between the North American franchise model and the British club model. In the US setup, a franchise can only exist as part of a league, whereas a club exists independently of a league. Mosmof (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And so when this club was in USSF-D2 and later the NASL it was a franchise? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough to warrant article. Plenty of coverage in google news search. AlbinoFerret 17:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Different owners different league likely different players different stadium. It is a separate franchise. It spawned from the current version and is using that logo.Cptnono (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Same owners. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You sure about that? I know one owner is the same but it is a group. Even it it were the same entity (which I'm not convinced of) spinning off a separate article is a good break for the sake of length, prevents recentism (which will happen since the MLS side will get more attention than the last couple years of ball), and protects the uniformity of the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I stand corrected. Same owner, but with additional investors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2015 (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.