Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Brewers


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 09:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey Brewers
Very WP:NN. This was a soccer team, never having been to a playoff, nor the U.S. Open Cup. Delete. SynergeticMaggot 04:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into an article for the league, and Comment: There's a whole bunch of them at Category:United States soccer clubs. ~ trialsanderrors 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, if you want, you can link them all on AfD using this method: Wp:afd. SynergeticMaggot 04:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought there was one more team listed already, but I can't find it. In any case, better to launch a couple of trial balloons before you put in the effort. ~ trialsanderrors 05:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So wait, we want to delete former professional teams now? I don't know if i like that at all.  The team was a pro team in a league that was very well established, so keep.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - A member of an established professional sports league. Wickethewok 14:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a professional sports team in what was then the top-flight football (soccer) league in the US.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 14:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because the team wasn't in the playoffs or the U.S. Open Cup (as far as I know, none of the professional football (soccer) clubs in the US entered the cup in the 1970s and 1980s) doesn't mean they are irrelevant. Using this criteria we would also have to delete some NASL teams. It's fine to keep obscure information. DC 17:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Are tabled data listings subject to copyright? If so, the cluster of articles might have copyvio problems. ~ trialsanderrors 18:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Doubtful. If they are, it's a quick fix.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a whole bunch of them. I think I might run this by WP:CV. ~ trialsanderrors 18:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What part do you think is copyvio? The results?  The setup?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wholesale copying of tabulated data. ~ trialsanderrors 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you consider any sort of tabulated data that's reproduced a copyvio? I'm not trying to tweak you here, I'm honestly curious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As a researcher, I'm happy if people take my tabulated findings and summarize them in their work. If they just take my work wholesale and provide no sourcing I think I have a very good standing if I call them on copyvio. But I'm sure there is precedent, so maybe someone with more expertise can chime in. ~ trialsanderrors 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Btw, I looked around a little and it seems at least rankings are clearly copyrighted. Not sure if those tables are considered rankings, and if e.g. ESPN has to pay MLB to publish them. ~ trialsanderrors 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure how rankings can be copyrighted - it's like saying that "The Red Sox are a half game in front of the Yankees" is copyrighted. If it is, then remove it, but that seems...curious to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a clear precedent in college rankings. I guess part of the question is whether MLB compiles the standings themselves. If they do they clearly hold the rights for their efforts. If not they might still do as they generate the product that yields the rankings, but it's less clear. ~ trialsanderrors 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I never knew that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, a comment on the 1984 Orange Bowl AfD said that full game reports are also copyrighted even if they're written by journalists because the creative effort is the game itself, not the reporting. ~ trialsanderrors 23:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep formerly a professional team. Unless we want to delete all former kings, or (God Forbid!) presidents, on the basis they are no longer in office therefor NN? Jcuk 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please this is former professional time erasing makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jcuk. If part of the article is in fact a copyvio, as trialsanderrors says, remove that section.  I believe this team has value as part of the history of American soccer. Srose  (talk)  20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, there is a whole bunch of them which look essentially the same. One-liner, repeating the comment from the (very well done) American Soccer League article, table. If we have to remove the tables, the purpose of the articles collapses and they can be folded back into American Soccer League unless they have distinguishing content. ~ trialsanderrors 20:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep article is about a professional sports team and is notable for that, as well as for the history of "soccer" in the US  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 20:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Professional team in a defunct league is notable. Article just needs expansion. Resolute 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, because real notability has an infinite shelf life. Yamaguchi先生 02:37, 19 July 2006 (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.