Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest paid American television stars


 * 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   no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

List of highest paid American television stars

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an unsourced, trivial list. Logan | Talk 21:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Incredibly inane unsourced listcruft (is Maury really being paid $7 million a year to proclaim "you are the father"? A little high).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment No excuse for this not being sourced, since I'm assuming that the author got this from somewhere. Even at that, I question the accuracy of comparing someone's income from ownership of a show to income paid to someone who is working for others.  Still, I don't think that we need to have a series of articles listing the highest paid TV stars in each year.  A smaller list would be appropriate as part of an article showing the results over a longer period of time, since compensation of performers is encyclopedic, and it would illustrate the increase in worth over the year.  Mandsford (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and add references and qualify salary versus production income. It is no more "inane" than any other financial list put out by Forbes or Business Week. I have always believed there is no such thing as a trivial topic, just trivial people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Most of the text is copied verbatim from the Reuters article referenced, and is therefore a copyvio, but the opening section is based on a contradictory article on AOL. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to how the contradictions are resolved, except apparently through OR. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't copyright facts. If it was a list of some subjective matter it could be copyrighted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just facts. It's facts,descriptions, annotations, etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Listcruft and copyvio as stated above.  Tckma (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivial for one year alone; as Mandsford suggests, may (may) be worthwhile for more years, along the lines of the List of highest paid baseball players (itself fraught with issues). - Biruitorul Talk 23:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a general note, we do not delete based on the nonsense non-word "cruft". Anyway, if nothing else definitely verifiable through a reliable source concerning a notable subject.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it is worthy to see, it is confirmed by the new refrences, so i think it should stay. -- Pedro J. the rookie 03:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think with the new refrences it is verifiable, it has a link and and the sources are reliable. -- Pedro J. the rookie 14:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if the individual salary figures are referenced, the claim(s) that these are the highest figures are not reliably sourced. For quite a few of the prime-time performers in ensemble shows, the references don't even support the claim that they're the highest paid performers on their shows. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even so it mthose say the amount that they get paid and the top are mainly known Oprha, Dr.Phil, Simon Cowell, those are quite obios. -- Pedro J.  the rookie 15:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I'd like to see a lead section that summarizes the information, but the ample reliable and verifiable sources that have been added meet the necessary requirements and address issues raised re sourcing. There are no copyright issues here and any argument where "cruft" is offered as an argument for deletion should be an automatic keep in my book. Rather than including a year, the as of date should be listed in the article rather than in the title. I would Also suggest capitalizing "American" and making the title for the article "List of highest paid American television stars". Alansohn (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see what purpose this article serves. Who cares what celebrities make? TomCat4680 (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Many pepol care a lot what stars earn and even more editors and readers that are in to Hollywood, and stars, so i would think the artical could be helpful for many readers with some updates it maybecome a great artical. -- Pedro J. the rookie 19:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, requires some cleanup and clarification (is it current salaries only or historic, my opinion it should be historic), but it is a notable subject and easily verifiable. --kelapstick (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it should be historic. -- Pedro J. the rookie 22:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started converting the lists into sortable wikitables, with a section for "year" as well.--kelapstick (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article improvements have reliable sources which verify notability. So per our policies and guidelines seem to indicate this is a keeper.  In response to the the "who cares" delete... I would simply say that one man's folly is another mans indulgence.  I'd quite imagine there are WP readers and editors who care little about the Detroit Lions, but that doesn't make them any less desirable to our encyclopedic effort either.  No offense intended of course. — Ched :  ?  05:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: While the sourcing for some of the individual salary levels has been greatly improved, there is still virtually no sourcing for the claims that these are the "highest paid" performers. The newspiece which started this whole thing is a feature that runs annually in TV Guide, giving examples of top-level salaries, not a comprehensive analysis. Note, for example, that the "morning" section omits Barbara Walters, verifiably sourced in her Wikipedia article at a much higher salary than all but one of the "top" performers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected that error, and as i said it can be changed and updated anytime, so it can be helped and make it acpectable for wikipedia, and again as i said with some work this could become a very good artical. -- Pedro J. the rookie 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixing one error doesn't address the problem of general unreliability on the central subject. And since when has "America's Top Model" been a "morning" show? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that section should be axed all together, I don't think that The Price is Right and Judge Judy qualify as "morning shows" either. But that isn't a reason to remove the entire article.--kelapstick (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't access the references, but the "morning show" might be for The Tyra Banks Show, not America's Next Top Model. Just speculating here.--kelapstick (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Checked on Tyra, it is solved and what do you mean with Axed. -- Pedro J. the rookie 19:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean that the entire article should not be deleted because of one section (morning show).--kelapstick (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

i see. -- Pedro J. the rookie 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There is plenty of mention of this in the news media, so it meets the suggested guidelines for notability. It is something that is mentioned regularly, and should be commented on.  An encyclopedia that doesn't show how much some of the most influential people in the world make, wouldn't be completed.  A list for television stars, one for those involved in the movies, one for wealthiest businessmen, etc.  Its all good.   D r e a m Focus  01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per my belief that this is in the spirit of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Numbers can be crunched any which way and you can make a list out of virtually any subject, but I'm not sure that this enables meaningful encyclopedic coverage. I know it's not the greatest rationale, but it's my opinion, just throwing it out there. Martin Raybourne (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2009 (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.