Talk:Main Street Sports Group

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Needs an infobox. See Template:Infobox company..

TomCat4680 (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

We shall see. I might have some time this weekend to do just that. - AppleBsTime (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Infobox added, with a few lines filled in. BilCat (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Should the bankruptcy be split into a separate article/is the company notable

Five sports franchises have seen effects from the bankruptcy of Diamond Sports. The San Diego Padres, Arizona Diamondbacks, The ACC, the Phoenix Suns and most recently the Arizona Coyotes. The company itself is not particularly notable. In my opinion this article should either be transitioned to focus on the Bankruptcy primarily or be split. A split could also include recent television changes that were moved by this regional sports network "crisis."

Adding some people who might have thoughts. I just want a consensus.

BilCat, Zzyzx11, Msw1002

Thanks! Esolo5002 (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like there should be an overall regional sports network realignment article that also covers the coinciding AT&T SportsNet closure. It sort of reminds me of pages like 1994–1996 United States broadcast television realignment and 2006 United States broadcast television realignment, but we now have teams changing networks instead of channels changing network affiliations. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Unless Main Street Sports Group does some other notable business activity after FanDuel Sports Network folds later this year, I do not see justifications for keeping separate articles in the long run. All Main Street (formerly Diamond) really did was just be a holding company for the network, and the article currently just seems like a detailed history fork of the network with a bunch of proselines and tables. The fact that it also held minority ownership in the YES Network can still be listed in a single line in a section (as it does now), and does not really need a whole separate article either. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I support the merge.—Bde1982 (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support Effectively a company that was a 'one-year wonder' whose history is easily merged into the main article. Nathannah • 📮 05:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I support this as well. Definitely could be put into its own spot. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 19:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support with conditions Zzyzx11, as nominator, I hope you know what this means. Sure MSSG was just a holding company for the networks/channels post-Fox Networks Group, but it focused on the business transaction side with the networks/channels dealing with broadcast rights and scheduling side. Of course MSSG's history could be incubated into its own dedicated section of or get interwoven with the history of FDSN in FDSN's article page. Nathannah, I'm also with you on this one and the nom, but this is why other editors and temporary account editors were, are and are still always contemplate sending me to AN for blocking because, "a 'one-year wonder'"?! Come on! In case you've forgotten, the Justice Dept. ordered this divestiture, which then triggered possibility of such an article creation of this nature ever arising that we want it merged, and if it was so, MSSG could (if not should) have been sent to AFD for a merger there and there, so we won't have this proposal. Blackfootferret, I'm pinging you since you supported so that when this gets closed, you don't forget your part in reorganizing the FDSN article for newbies and visitors who may not know a thing about MSSG. Hence my support with conditions. Intrisit (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I have absolutely no idea about anything involving your AN/ANI threads; I'm solely commenting on the article. Please don't engage me any further about outside issues unrelated to the article itself. Nathannah • 📮 21:52, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  You do know that this is my opinion here and doesn't reflect any thought of action whatsoever! "AN/ANI" was only just a saying, it's laughable you think this way! My comment/vote was some sort of caution, as in, this was my fear of other editors (excluding you) possibly taking me to AN on any article merger following a proposal discussion. So you should have focused instead on the "I'm also with you on this one and the nom,... and disregard the rest because, again, that was my comment/vote, whether or not it had any bearing on the destination of the direction of the contents of this article. Intrisit (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. My opinion on this is extremely biased, but what is really different about this article compared to the main FanDuel Sports Network one is the focus on the bankruptcy (which I contributed a lot of). I think most of the other business stuff can easily be merged but I think a split focusing on the bankruptcy and demise could be prudent. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.