Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of $100 million sports contracts


 * 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. W.marsh 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

List of $100 million sports contracts
100 million is an entirely arbitrary number, this isn't significant or different from contracts of any other sums in any way. Prod removed after move to "List of" name. Rory096 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Hmm, $25 million? No, too small. $350 million? No, much to big. [Gasp] I know!... Okay, this was random and really isn't much of an article at all. Diez2 18:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I absolutely agree that WP has too many arbitrary lists with little or no sourcing which don't add to the project in anyway. However, the above list is actually well cited with informative notes.  As to the choice of $100 million, I really don't see what the big deal is.  It's the lowest 9-digit number which seems as good a place as any to start.  Furthermore, the relatively few (compared to the total number of pro athletes) individuals who make the list give it a certain notability.  I would actually like to see the list expanded to account for foreign athletes who have adjusted contract values of $100mil or more.  →Bobby ← 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I mis-spoke above when I said the list was well cited. I meant that the list is easily verifiable.  The actual numbers still need footnotes, and I'm working on finding these now. →Bobby ← 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Update - Now the list is well cited. →Bobby ← 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - WIkipedia is not a collection of lists -- Tawker 19:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's actually not listed in WP:NOT. Even if it was, one list does not constitute a collection. →Bobby ← 19:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There's one major problem with this list. In 5, 10 or 20 years, inflation may make the concept of a "$100 million contract" insignificant, particularly in sports like soccer and baseball that have no salary cap. Caknuck 19:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Absolutely. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  Just as we can't predict if something will be notable in the future, we also can't predict something won't be notable in the future.  By the same logic you use above, we shouldn't have a List of men who walked on the moon since fifty years from now we may all be walking on the moon.  This doesn't really work as a justification. →Bobby ← 19:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename and rework I think the best way to handle this would be to change it to a chronological list of the richest contracts (Timeline of the richest sports contracts maybe?). This would make the list more encyclopedic, less arbitrary and would pass the "100 year test". I'd even support breaking it up by sport, with separate lists for soccer, football, baseball, hockey and basketball. A timeline would work well, because key events (such as lockouts/strikes, the imposition of salary caps and the advent of free agency could also be noted to illustrate their effects on salaries. Also, a timeline format would be condusive to showing benchmarks like league minimum salaries, average salaries and per capita income. Caknuck 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - It sounds like a really nice idea. I'd want to see a draft before changing my opinion.  There's no reason to delete the current namespace at this time.  We can move the page later when the timeline is finalized.  →Bobby ← 22:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I would like to see the change mentioned above. Markco1 21:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as a sourced list with a pretty clear qualifier (a sportsperson contracted for US$ 100 million). If kept, would definitely agree to revisiting when $100,000,000 becomes small change per Caknuck. Also if kept, would like to see expansion to atheletes outside America's two staple sports. -- saberwyn 19:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's adequate coverage of all sports; if other athletes should be on the list, then by all means, add them. However, I just checked out a few football (soccer) players, such as Beckham, C. Ronaldo, Henry, etc. None of them have contracts that come close (adjusting the euro to USD). -- Kicking222 19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Transfer (football) has a list of the largest transfer fees paid for footballers, with Zidane's at approx. US$88 million. Different concept of course, but I busted out the calculator, so I'm mentioning it. Recury 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weakish keep I was on the fence, but Bobby's arguments for keeping the article are much stronger than those for deleting it. The number itself is slightly arbitrary, but if $100M becomes a (comparitively) small figure, the article can be changed to $150M, $200M, or whatever. It is an interesting list, and a sourced one. It is also a list that would not work as a category, and it contains a good amount of extra information. -- Kicking222 19:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Kickin222, and Bobby. CraigMonroe 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to something like List of largest sports contracts and just explain in the lead that the criteria for inclusion is (currently) US$100 million. Recury 21:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The subjects of the list are all notable and themselves and the inclusion criteria are specific. JChap2007 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable, well-organized, I always am glad when we are a resource for information not available in the same format elsewhere. The rename proposal by Recury has merit (and also addresses the looking-forward issue raised by some delete commenters), but should be addressed on the article talkpage, not forced by an AfD. Newyorkbrad 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is the only compilation of its kind on the web and the information is accurate and sourced (thanks Robertbcole). I agree that $100M is arbitrary, but you could also make the same argument for 500 home runs in baseball.  Even though 500 home runs is becoming more and more likely, it is still considered very significant.  The same is true for  a contract worth $100M.  Renaming the article to List of largest sports contracts is certainly an option.  That way, Timeline of richest sports contracts could also be included in the article (see format of List of highest paid baseball players). Whoppersnapper 02:30, 29 November 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.