Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 New York Cosmos season


 * 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 delete. An interesting discussion, but consensus is that GNG is not met, nor NSEASONS. Usually these discussions degenerate, but this has been a rational discussion with many salient points made on both sides, so kudos to the participants here. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 New York Cosmos season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NSEASONS. General consensus is that clubs that don't play in a fully-professional league are not allowed to have a season article. Also this. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom, fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 07:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that the WP:N is an arbitrary guideline, rather than a rule. It's arbitrary because it is up to individual users to interpret the guideline and deem if articles are in compliance. Leyton Orient is competing in the Conference National League, a semi-pro English league outside the English Football League system. If the WP:N was a RULE, the page would not have been allowed to be created, and if it slipped through users filters, it would be up for deletion currently. Arbitrarily, users have deemed that Leyton Orient is more deserving than the New York Cosmos of a "season" article.

I have become aware of the reasoning for the WP:N guidelines since yesterday. It is to prevent people from creating articles for ANY "team". This article is not an article about a 30 year fantasy football league/team and it is not about a 13-year old travel soccer team in Suffolk County, New York. It's an article about a professional team playing (one) season in a semi-pro league. Due to the folding of a USSF sanctioned division two league, the team has chosen to play in another USSF sanctioned league. The article is also about a team that is competing in the premier domestic cup competition (U.S. Open Cup). The Cosmos are not competing in this competition as an NPSL team. They are competing under special consideration by the USSF, that they and their NASL counterparts are professional teams that have chosen to play in a lower league as they look to play in a new professional league for the 2019 season.

As a side note: During the telecast of the Boston City FC v Cosmos April 29th match; Boston City FC announcers repeatedly stated that the Cosmos are a professional team playing against a much weaker side. They "look forward to seeing how weaker teams (than Boston) do against the Cosmos".

Tychu9 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment A few things on this comment first. 1. the fact that the Leyton Orient article exists is not reason for this article to exist. 2. WP:FOOTYN has pretty general guidelines about notability, and professional teams playing against non-professional teams is usually not enough to establish notability. 3. Technically, NPSL is not officially sanctioned by USSF, they only sanction divisions 1-3 and NPSL is not one of them. 4. Competing in the domestic cup is not a justification for this article, or for any similar article for a team competing in the competition. 5. Technically it is the New York Cosmos "B" team that is competing, so the article title itself is off.
 * I think that the conversation surrounding notability for team seasons is one worth expanding upon, but I don't think this is the place to do it. For now, the inclination should go toward the consensus that these articles are not notable, and looking at the citations there's no clear evidence it is. Per GiantSnowman I'm inclined to vote delete, although I think seasons such as this are worth revisiting in the future. Jay eyem (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not pushing for the removal of Leyton Orient's page. What I am contending is that the existence of the Leyton Orient page shows that it is a guideline rather than a strict RULE. In fact I am pushing for the expansion of the guidelines to allow a "season" page for ANY team (in an organized pyramid team)that has an active fan base. I update the page as a hobby; and for many people, wikipedia is a valuable source of information for sports teams and their leagues. On my position of the WP:FOOTYN being a guideline rather than CODE; there shouldn't be a move to "look at expansion in future". It is not a code of baseball that needs to be voted on for consideration to change. But as a guideline; it is fluid and should be expanded or defined at any time. A RULE is not arbitrary. Either something fits or it doesn't fit. The article in question, was arbitrarily deemed out of compliance with a poorly defined guideline. What makes one article (Leyton Orient) compliant, while this one is out of compliance? Until that question is answered or the guideline is rigidly structured, this article is compliant. I vote keep.Tychu9 (Tychu9) 19:11, 1 May 2018
 * Comment if that's the case, this isn't the place to do it. This is an AfD, not a place to discuss changes to guidelines and policy. I am not 100% certain where you should propose those changes, but I know it isn't here. Also your argument is heavily reliant on the idea that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I recommend reading that first. Jay eyem (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The notability guidelines are important in maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. They can serve to keep content included, if an article meets the guidelines but is found distasteful by many. They can also bring to light articles created that clearly lack notability and are indefensible. Finally, the guidelines can lead to discussions such as this one about an article that some may see as falling short while others find notable. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not "hard and fast rules." "Guidelines are generally meant to be best practices." "Guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." It is for this reason that both the general notability guideline and the sports team seasons guideline define what is notable without saying that articles that fail to meet the criteria are automatically excluded from the encyclopedia. It merely creates a rebuttable presumption that the article should not be included. This is where reason and common sense come in. While it will usually be plainly obvious to most Wikipedians that an article that fails to meet the notability guidelines simply doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, in some cases, reason and common sense dictate otherwise. While the rebuttable presumption that an article should be excluded is rarely rebutted, in my opinion, the unique circumstances surrounding the 2018 Cosmos season create a convincing case that we should look beyond mere rote application of the guidelines.
 * If I have any concern about the notability of the subject of an article I am considering creating, I first consult the WikiProject that is most closely related to the article's content. WikiProject Football mentions that there are guidelines for the notability of players, teams and leagues. It is silent regarding guidelines for clubs' seasons. This surprises me, since there are many such articles. The club notability guideline says, "All teams that have played in the national cup...are assumed to meet WP:N criteria." Since the Cosmos are participating in the 2018 U.S. Open Cup, it stands to reason that this element, which makes the team notable, also makes the article in which it will be discussed notable. If that element is so important that it alone can confer presumptive notability on a club, how could it not also confer automatic notability on a season during which it takes place? The Cosmos participation in the U.S. Open Cup should be discussed in prose in the article about the club's 2018 season. That is something which needs to be improved in the article, not a reason for it to be deleted. It is important to recognize that the Cosmos are not competing in the US Open Cup as an NPSL qualifier. Rather, the USSF is treating the team as one that plays in a fully professional league (like the NASL) and giving it an automatic entry to the tournament, despite the fact that the USSF decertified the NASL of which the Cosmos are a member club. If the USSF is treating the Cosmos in the same manner in which it treats teams in fully professional leagues, shouldn't Wikipedia consider doing so as well?
 * In the absence of clear guidance from WikiProject Football, we are left with the guideline for seasons of all sports teams, which says that articles for seasons can be created for teams in top professional leagues. If this rule were applied to association football articles without reason and common sense, 2017–18 Bolton Wanderers F.C. season or any other article about a team in a second-tier league would be a candidate for deletion, unless it met WP:GNG. Yet, in the context of association football clubs, I believe few Wikipedians would challenge the notability of the season of any club in a fully professional league (as mentioned above, even though that is not what the guideline says). Please do not misinterpret my point. I am not saying that since the Wanderers article appears in the encyclopedia even though it fails (or may fail, subject to WP:GNG,) the criteria, that leads to the conclusion that the 2018 Cosmos article also belongs in Wikipedia. What I am saying is that the notability guideline is not a rule that should be applied by rote. Rather, reason and common sense may sometimes result in a conclusion that departs from the notability guideline. That's how we end up with articles like 2016–17 Leyton Orient F.C. season.
 * Despite failing WP:NSEASONS, the 2018 Cosmos article appears to meet WP:GNG. NBC Sports reported on the Cosmos request to USSF to be included in the U.S. Open Cup. ESPN reported on the USSF granting the request. This clearly represents significant, non-trivial coverage from reliable sources independent of the Cosmos. It is reasonable to expect that more coverage is likely to ensue. The club currently has 16 players on its roster that meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines for players. Many NPSL clubs have no such players, and the overwhelming majority appear to have fewer than five. Unlike most NPSL clubs that are just happy to appear in the U.S. Open Cup, the Cosmos expect to advance deep into the tournament and earn a match against an MLS team. The performance of a player such as Chris Wingert, who played 14 seasons in MLS can be expected to draw attention from that league's fans and to generate additional media coverage. Rafael Garcia played six seasons in MLS. The club conducts its affairs in a manner far above that of an NPSL club, and the media have paid attention. Wikipedians should use reason and common sense to do the same. Taxman1913 (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment without trying to badger, I would like to once again point out that it is the "New York Cosmos B" team that is competing in the NPSL, not the "New York Cosmos". If nothing else, the article should at least be moved to 2018 New York Cosmos B season. Jay eyem (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Coment I'm willing to concede that point IF it comes down to "moving it or NOTHING". But my reasoning (and some of the other supporters) for viewing 2018 as a Cosmos season and not Cosmos B is; There is no "A"team. So we can't technically have a "B" team. Jacksonville Armada is not treating it as their "B" squad. On their website they had the tagline "New Season, New League, New Look". Speaking as a fan, I believe that the reason why the NPSL and team is calling it the "B" team is the simple fact that the New York Cosmos B had already applied to be a member of the 2018 NPSL season well before the hiatus of the NASL season and first team. Another point is that, the simple majority of 2018 New York Cosmos "B" players signed with the club and were professional players from previous seasons. There are only 4-5 returning players from the 2017 Cosmos "B" campaign. Tychu9 (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2018
 * Coment It is OR to speculate on why the Cosmos themselves continue to call their NPSL side "Cosmos B". The simple fact is that they do, and we should not confuse the issue by adopting a different style to everyone else. SixFourThree (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree
 * Comment I agree that identifying the team as something other than Cosmos B is original research. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment We cannot consider the names or content of articles on Wikipedia through the lens of fans. In order to maintain neutrality in article titles, we should use a name derived from reliable sources where one is available. All reliable sources, including the organization's own website, are identifying this team as Cosmos B, not Cosmos. The reasons for that are not relevant. The fact that Cosmos fans regard the NPSL squad as something other than a "B" team could lead to the club being identified simply as "Cosmos" on the basis of this being a commonly recognizable name. However, when we consider the entire universe of Wikipedia users, only a small fraction are Cosmos fans. The rest of the users likely regard this as a "B" team, since that is what they see in every reliable source. Finally, using "B" in the article title distinguishes this article from an article about the organization's main club, which the organization says is on hiatus. This is preferable under WP:SMALLDETAILS. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I meant to address this point which had previously been made by Jay eyem, but I failed to do so, so I don't see resurrecting it as badgering. I do agree that the team is clearly identified in all original sources, including on its own website, as Cosmos B and not Cosmos. The article should be moved to 2018 New York Cosmos B season. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - the organization has made it quite clear that it cancelled the 2018 season. This content clearly refers to a different team within the same organization, New York Cosmos B.  Even if the material is sufficiently notable, it does not belong on this page, and should be moved to 2018 New York Cosmos B season.  SixFourThree (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree
 * Move The article should be moved, but the content should not be deleted. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Move I’ll be happy with that consensus. Tychu9 (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep  The New York Cosmos are a professional team in operation since 2011, with a viable ownership structure. The league in which they participated was involuntarily de-sanctioned (the North American Soccer League) on the basis of inconsistently-applied USSF PLS guidelines. The sanctioning body is currently undergoing litigation to determine the nature of its relationship with other leagues and whether or not its interests conflict with its role as impartial arbiter of standards. While this litigation is underway in Federal Court (as of 1 May 2018), it is relevant to question whether or not the decision to de-sanction the North American Soccer League met basic ethical standards. The initial finding of the Federal Court found that while there was not enough evidence (absent discovery) at this stage to meet the heightened involuntary injunction standards, there was certainly indication that legitimate questions existed as to the propriety of the USSF's decision-making process, their inconsistent behavior with other leagues. Judge Brodie indicated in her preliminary injunction motion ruling the NASL's claims would likely survive the USSF's follow-up motion to dismiss. In other words, a trial is likely to be granted. Without a final determination in this active litigation, it is premature to ascribe the USSF's decision as legitimate. The deliberation as to whether the New York Cosmos are a member of a professional league is very much still in flight.


 * Furthermore, on the basis of deciding whether the New York Cosmos itself are a professional soccer team/organization, it should be noted that they met all USSF's club-specific PLS requirements for a professional team.


 * As indicated above by Taxman1913, their participation in the United States premiere domestic tournament reflects the special temporary circumstances a number of viable club organizations (e.g., New York Cosmos, The Miami FC, Jacksonville Armada) associated with the NASL and meeting all club-specific USSF PLS guidelines for a professional team found themselves in at the beginning of the year. Their participation in the 2018 Lamar Hunt United States Open Cup was only possible through the direct sanctioning of the United States Soccer Federation.
 * Dream-king (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This is pretty much word-for-word what you wrote at Talk:2018 New York Cosmos season and really does not address the notability concerns involved. Could you please follow the discussion a little more closely and offer a followup to explain these points? Jay eyem (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Not to mention it's editorializing and therefore both OR and highly-debatable. SixFourThree (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree


 * Nominators Comment: You guys are making this harder than it should be. Look, the fact is that the Cosmos are not playing in a fully-professional league right now. They, or Cosmos B, are playing in the National Premier Soccer League, which is at best a semi-professional league, not a fully-professional league. Technically, it isn't even Cosmos playing in NPSL but the B team. Right now you guys will play in 1 US Open Cup game but that makes no difference. With all this, this article should be deleted. Simple as that. Leyton Orient arguably should be deleted too. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I do think we're talking about two separate issues. There seems to be a clear consensus that this article should be deleted.  Perhaps the material should be moved to a different article, but that's a different discussion on notability.  Delete this, create the new page, and we can debate it there.  SixFourThree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems a consensus has formed that the content of the article is about Cosmos B and not the Cosmos. It is also clear that the article (no matter its title) fails WP:NSEASONS. However, articles posted on the websites of NBC Sports and ESPN clearly represent significant, non-trivial coverage from reliable sources independent of the club. It didn't take long to find these articles, and I suppose I could find more. Let's keep in mind that the team has only played one match. The guidelines at WP:NSPORTS are intended "to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline." They are not intended to supplant the general notability guidelines. The content of this article meets WP:GNG based on the coverage by NBC Sports and ESPN; such content simply needs to be moved to 2018 New York Cosmos B season. Anyone who is a proponent of deletion without moving needs to demonstrate why the content fails WP:GNG. So far, this has been glossed over and ignored. I would be delighted to read the opinions of the participants in this discussion who wish to address that issue. Taxman1913 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete, per nom, WP:NSEASONS. Bmf 051 (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:NSEASONS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Delete, as this page doesn't have anything to do with the subject of its title. I also happen to think a hypothetical 2018 New York Cosmos B season fails WP:NSEASONS, but that's a separate discussion. SixFourThree (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree
 * Delete I maintain that the article still fails WP:NSEASONS and agree that a Cosmos B article would also fail NSEASONS. It could possibly meet WP:GNG but that hasn't been demonstrated yet: nearly all of the sources just discuss the signing of new players, which is routine coverage. The one that isn't about signing new players is about the decision for the team to join the Open Cup qualifying, but that doesn't do much to demonstrate the notability of this season. I think a lot of the keep arguments are effectively WP:INHERIT arguments, but one of the strongest arguments discusses the lack of guideline that the project itself uses. This is definitely worth discussing in the future, but especially based on the current sourcing I think deletion is the right option. Jay eyem (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS and not enough there for WP:GNG. NZFC  (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per NSEASONS and just about every other WP:GNG based reason. The professional Cosmos are not playing in 2018 (which is what this article is titled), the semi-pro Cosmos B are playing, but is not significantly covered in independent, widely distributed media. At best there are dedicated blogs to NPSL teams (such as this for the Cosmos in general). The closest this comes to meeting GNG is when the subject of the news article is the NASL team's non-operations and the mention that the B team is still playing like this ESPN article. Yosemiter (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2018 (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.