Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in the United States


 * 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. I think this can be closed as keep, a lot of work has been done on the article and references now show that broadcasting contracts do receive coverage in their own right. there hasn't been a delete vote in over two weeks and keep votes since then all note the improving quality of the article. Fenix down (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sports broadcasting contracts in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is nearly just a list of what channels that sports are on. Infinite mission (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment An article like this can't pass GNG, Nominator needs to provide a policy based argument. Govvy (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG. Barca (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep with concessions: I feel this article could be useful if it were restructured under the stand-alone lists guidelines, including more sources, and the extent and length of rights, perhaps in a table format. In addition, I'd recommend having a certain threshold for inclusion of specific competitions/leagues based on prominence/popularity/long-term notability. We have a ton of articles on this subject for other countries already, so this is a notable concept here. ViperSnake151   Talk  21:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep.Should be cleaned up to be more like Sports broadcasting contracts in the United Kingdom and some of the more developed 'Sports broadcasting contracts by country' articles. As ViperSnake151 stated, all these list pages can be more developed with more content and more sources than just listing the TV channels. Various sports league articles have cited sections like Premier League and National Football League, and thus these list articles can comply with WP:LISTN and WP:SALAT by compiling all this cited media and broadcasting content, and organising them into the separate 'Sports broadcasting contracts by country' articles. If this is the only page deleted and not the other 'Sports broadcasting contracts by country' articles, I'm afraid that some well-intentioned registered newbies in the U.S. will likely try to recreate this again, either like Sports broadcasting contracts in the United Kingdom or with the content I and ViperSnake151 described. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. I have started to add some more content to the article, as an example to what can be done. I believe this is a notable topic that should be kept: the fact that U.S. sports broadcasting rights is a significant source of revenue for the International Olympic Committee and various sports leagues. It can be discussed what should be there and what should be not, but should be cleaned up instead of deleted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs to be tidied up but it definitely should be kept, especially given that there are similar articles for many other counties. Rillington (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per ViperSnake151. The sources needed to demonstrate notability clearly exist, many of which were added recently by ZZyzx11. While the article certainly could use more work, it could function as a standalone list or general overview article. Alternaively, if expansion makes this article too large, it would still be a useful summary of any sub-articles that could concievably be created. If these subtopics are too specific, though, and would not be independently notable (unlike 2018 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights, for example), the list can summarize everything in accordance with point 2 of WP:CSC. ComplexRational (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep A very poor nomination rationale and has been improved significantly, which the nom could have done rather than ask for deletion.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - AfD is not cleanup, notable topic. Bookscale (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2019 (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.