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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York Cosmos (2010)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
New York Cosmos (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails both WP:V and WP:OR. No mainstream publications directly support the assertion that this club is a separate entity. This article had originally posted a "founding date" which could not be verified anywhere and which was subsequently removed. The club itself, ie the current trademark holders, acknowledge only one unified historic timeline, and no publications have disputed this. Wikipedia requires that we post only information that can be verified, not our own interpretations of facts, even if we believe them to be true. If most publications seem to accept this club as the same entity, it is the policy of Wikipedia not to create a new perspective unique to Wikipedia. Since the nature of a separate article is suspect, it's inclusion is also redundant to the first article, which should therefore cover all current material referring to the Cosmos as a club. This article should be deleted. unak1978 09:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I love this re-write of history that is going on. All the articles referenced on the New York Cosmos (2010) mention that the original club "folded" or "cease operations" in 1985. A club "folding" or "ceasing operations" does not exist. The Cosmos team in extistence today is not the same team that operated in 1985. It is a new club that purchased the name and logo of the old club.KitHutch (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI understand your position and respect it, but I think that it's important that you address how this article satisfies Wikipedia policy. It exists primarily to avoid such disagreements. You're merely stating an opinion. The idea that a "folded" or "ceased operations" club can be reformed under the same history already has precedent on this site long before the NY Cosmos came along, but that is not the topic of this discussion. Bottom line is everything on this site must be verified and it's important that you address whether or not this article satisfies WP:V. I've tried to bring this up numerous times before in discussion. unak1978 20:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - You haven't stated how the article fails Wikipedia policy. Even if this club is legally the same entity from the original club, if you have a reliable source for that, just add it to this article. And add a link and a small section to the article on the old Cosmos noting that as well. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was tried before, but there were certain editors who were reverting any compromise changes from being made to the article. Perhaps I took a drastic route, but it seemed the only manner in which to relay my point to a broader pool of editors. I also posted the article for Request for Comment in both the sports and business categories, but very few editors actually monitor the RFC discussions. There were no outside responses. To clarify, although they haven't chosen to comment in this particular discussion, there were editors who agreed with my general argument, so I believe that a compromise was warranted. However short of the same notice I gave to everyone involved in the original discussion, I've made no other attempts to introduce them to this particular discussion in order to avoid biased canvassing. unak1978 06:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis is not entirely true. Before the issue of North American soccer clubs came to pass, there was a consensus in all sports. And it was that Wikipedia would remain neutral and allow the publications, media, and teams themselves to dictate status. If you can find an instance outside of N. American soccer where we have also deemed this in the same light, then common sense would apply. However that is not the case. It seems that what we have here is a special exemption is being made just for these specific instances outside of the norm. Wikipedia once had a standard by which these things were determined, however we are arbitrarily changing it to satisfy this specific category of teams and that's wrong in my opinion. In that instance we lose our neutrality and this reference site becomes something else entirely. Now we are creating the precendent that we can initiate a standard from Wikipedia without that standard having been initiated elsewhere which I find troubling.
Bottom line the question that has to be answered here is do we want Wikipedia to be acurrate and consistent, or a hodgepodge of different sets of rules for different sets of information. In every other section of Wikipedia, science, health, or business articles, we have a standard and stick to it bc that's the best way in which to ensure accuracy. But here we feel it's ok to accept a change in how we view a certain standard and do not even choose to revisit the other articles which set that standard to ensure uniformity. If this is the case, if this is how we want to standardize how we view such articles, then for those same purposes we need to go back and change all of the articles that rest under, not just similar, but the exact same circumstances. That goes for ACF Fiorentina, the Portland Beavers baseball club, basically any other team that we have judged for years under a certain standard that we now seem to deem it ok to change out of the blue. Otherwise we need a specific reason why this is different. Yes there are no hard-bound rules to Wiki editing, but if we don't have reasonable standards then this site becomes an unreliable mish-mash of information. There needs to be a standard, period. And if we are going to decide that this is our standard then be ready to go and change the rest of the articles for the sake of uniformity and consistency. This is why I feel so strongly about this. Am I wrong to believe that these should be things that we take into consideration when we edit here on Wikipedia? unak1978 02:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is my final point on this discussion. Notability isn't the argument. Under either argument, the name NY Cosmos is still notable. That's not being called into question. Verifiability of the information, or rather the manner in which it's being presented in this article is. I can accept the argument that keeping the timelines separate serves a functional purpose and I supported certain compromises that were proposed in the merge discussion. In the past we have split articles, but in none of those cases does the information presented in those articles contradict the information officially presented by the team itself. Nothing that's been published in any article directly contradicts the date that the Cosmos themselves recognize.
Taking the example of the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals. Despite the fact that the two articles are separated, the National's founding date is still listed as 1969, a date that it shares with the Montreal Expos yet also the officially recognized date by the club as MLB allows their clubs to determine this on their own. I ask this; had the club chosen another date, eg the founding date of the original Nationals (which MLB left on the table), would we have had the right to present another founding date on this site? With MK Dons the club willingly relinquished all trophies and claims on the original history of Wimbledon F.C.. No contradiction there. In another example, the Cleveland Browns were essentially a folded franchise for almost 4 seasons when Art Modell took the franchise to Baltimore. Had he chosen, he could have changed the name to the Ravens, yet still kept all of the requisite history of the Browns. He gave that history and the name back to the city of Cleveland and we recognized that and so did the NFL. When the Tennessee Titans moved from Houston Bud Adams chose to deny the city of Houston the history and the naming rights and kept them with his team. I would also note that we do not have separate articles for those two teams despite the similar circumstances with the Nationals/Expos situation. When the Oklahoma City Thunder left Seattle they agreed to leave the history and records in Seattle. There are separate articles, but in the infobox it makes note of the fact that the current Sonics are located in Oklahoma and shows thier timeline. However, if/when a new club is located in Seattle by the NBA, they will have claim on the official history and records, even if that event takes place 25 years from now. If such a situation comes to pass will we ignore, the Sonic's claim on that history, which will also be backed by the NBA?
But this particular article originally added a founding date of this year while willfully ignoring the club's own valid claim on the rest of it's history. So again, while it may be hold encyclopaedic value to separate the information, to present the information in such a manner that contradicts the way that it's presented in publication is not. To present our own version of this club's establishment date in direct contradiction to their official founding date cannot possibly avoid WP:OR. So if we're going to decide that this article remains, are we also deciding that we as Wikipedia editors also have to leeway to basically present the club's history on the basis on terms that we decide? There is no conflicting claim on the club's history. They own all of the trophies and all of the records. Most sports league's allow a teams ownership in such a position to lay claim to those records. On what basis can we contradict that here? We can present the fact that the club did fold, and they have not operated for 25 years. But I think that we have always drawn the line at actively contradicting the club in question. Because aren't we also supposed to be concerned with WP:NPOV? Are we arbitrators of public dispute? Is it our role to place emphasis where we decide, or do we merely reflect information from our sources as a concise reference resource? If we ignore our policy altogether without compromise, then what is the point of having them in the first place? I believe that we have a responsibility to reflect all aspects of this club's status rather than dismissing it out of hand. Unless you can present an example that sets an alternate precedent, then this article should allude to that claim even if they're kept separate. Listing the date of the relaunch can be held as accurate if you also list the club's own established timeline for neutrality purposes. This has been done before in the examples that I have laid out above. Under those circumstances I wouldn't argue that this article should be kept. unak1978 20:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit While, the Oklahoma City Thunder agreed to leave the name and colors of the Sonics in Seattle, they did not relinquish the history and championships as the Baltimore Ravens did. But this once again re-establishes ownership prerogative in another case. Had the Browns taken 25 years to establish another team they would have still had the legitimate claim to thier titles and history. Just wanted to correct that bit of information there unak1978 06:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like people are preferring separate pages for the sake of clarity as there is a jarring difference between old and new. Would a separate article noting the current club claims the history of the older club suffice? --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that I've ever been opposed to such a compromise, so long as the club's history and the refounding date are given equal weight in a similar manner to how it's handled in the Oklahoma City/Seattle pages. Thank you. If such a compromise can be agreed to then I rescind my nomination. unak1978 06:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As this new club wasn't actually founded when the original was, I'm hesitant to say the first founding date is equal to its "refounding." Whatever ends up being in the end result, a clear distinction needs to be made between what history the new Cosmos claim for themselves and what events transpired to create this new organization. In the end, I'm sure middle ground will be found. --Blackbox77 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing could be said about the Cleveland Browns. They are not even the same team, the franchise was essentially an expansion franchise with no history, yet they claim the original club's history by virtue of Art Modell rescinding it to a future franchise. They were out of business for four years. Had it been twenty I'm certain that we would still not be denying thier claim to that history. A case can be made that the Cosmos claim to that history is stronger than the Browns' since the original Browns are essentially the Baltimore Ravens. Noone is confused by this history. We make note of these facts yet still lend full credence to the club's official history. I'm happy with a compromise, and the circumstances of the club's history are inevitably going to be included in the article. The fact that the article is made separate from it's parent article should lend a clear enough distinction. I just want to see that a sincere effort at a real compromise is actually made this time around. Any compromise should be in line with prior precedent and eliminate any hint of bias. unak1978 07:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens situation is completely unrelated to this issue. The city of Cleveland never lost its NFL franchise. The NFL put the Cleveland franchise on reserve and promised it would resume play once a stadium was built and Art Modell was awarded an expansion franchise in Baltimore. In the case of the Cosmos there was no promise of a return. It wasn't even a possibility until a few months ago. Their team died, their competitor teams died and their whole league died. GONE. There was no league left to keep a franchise alive. Thank you for bringing up the Washington Nationals as they are a perfect example of why these pages should remain split. The Nationals was a franchise founded in 1969 as the Montreal Expos yet they also claim a history that goes back further than their founding to 1905 and belongs to 2 other MLB franchises Minnesota TwinsTexas Rangers.Washington Nationals: Since 1969 or 1905?. Similarly, the Cincinnati Reds were founded in 1882 yet claim a history dating back to 1869, part of which belongs to the Atlanta Braves. Like the Nationals and Reds, this new group claims a market heritage dating back to 1971 but New York Cosmos LLC was founded in 2010 as an effort to gain the 20th franchise in Major League Soccer. That's was this article is about! Cmjc80 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you cannot recognise a disputed claim to a history that is owned by another team. Fortunately there is no other soccer team claiming the Cosmos history since that history is precisely what they purchased. There's also the fact that their definition is undoubtedly legally correct. The idea that it was only the existence of the NFL that ensured that Cleveland kept their history is incomplete. In the end it was Art Modell's decision. It's your opinion that the existence of the league is required, but in a legal sense the Cosmos are the exact same entity. If they claim the same history, then it is only through a subjective set of prerequisites that we are setting right here on Wikipedia that can deny them that. unak1978 03:44, 10 March 2011 (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.
More