Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest paid baseball players


 * 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 per consensus. A valid article, containing information widely discussed. Source is also reliable (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk  12:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

List of highest paid baseball players

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

Unreferencced, out of date listcruft Bricksense1987 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's not WP:Listcruft.


 * Comment - List appears to be a copyvio in part from SunCreator (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * keep - I created this article many years ago, because I thought the information was fascinating. This is not copyrighted information. I have gleaned it from many sources. As for the allegation that it is unreferenced: the article states (and I quote) "Source for career earnings: Baseball Reference" and "Source for 2007 salaries: ESPN". As for the allegation that the data is not updated, there is no rule here that data must be up to date. This is an encyclopedia, and it is ok to have historic data. But I will gladly update this information sometime later this week. Kingturtle (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment ESPN maybe your source, but it says on the ESPN website. 'Copyright ©2008 ESPN Internet Ventures.'. That appears a copyright violation to me. SunCreator (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The salary data are available from other Websites. For example, the 2007 salary data are available from www.baseball-reference.com, which lists Doug Pappas as its source . This type of widely reported data generally isn't considered to be protected by copyright. BRMo (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.   —BRMo (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This list presents salary information that is widely discussed in the media and is available from multiple Websites; I don't see how it can be considered to be listcruft. And it includes information from 2007, so it isn't that out of date.  I'm not an expert on copyright law, but my understanding is that this type of widely reported data is not protected by copyright. I don't see any valid arguments for deletion. BRMo (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Nomination argument is cruftcruft.  I fail to see how this kind of content isn't encyclopedic/almanac material.  If it can be verified and sourced, then it has a place here.  Celarnor Talk to me  00:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, nominator seems to be an SPA. Celarnor Talk to me  01:51, 9 April 2008 (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.