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.  Sandstein  10:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Soccer lore (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)

Major League Soccer and History of Major League Soccer already exists. Page seems redundant. Plus, first line implies it's a blog-esque post. Crusty4545 (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and expand History of Major League Soccer is just an outline of the league in general, less about specific games. Quidster4040 (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit true, seems more appropriate to elaborte on respective crtical games on History of Major League Soccer. Crusty4545 (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable topic and a magnet for original research. There is no evidence that reliable sources discuss the "lore" of MLS as a discrete topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, any relevant information should be included in articles about individual teams or the league.Arials101 (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are already historical MLS articles. This is redundant. KitHutch (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  21:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It would be better suited as a category of MLS matches. SounderBruce 22:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - inherently unencyclopedic. No clear inclusion criteria and smacks very much of cruft and trivia. Fenix down (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as already stated, this article is redundant. Spiderone 12:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's still nothing actually convincing how this can be independently notable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why is this even notable and how did this AfD discussion take so long?07:34, 7 June 2016 (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.