Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association football 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 no consensus. There is obviously WP:SIGCOV of specific cases of footballers' contracts, but there is no agreement on whether these suffice as significant coverage of the topic as a whole. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association football contracts

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG and seems to be WP:! dashiellx (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems extremely likely based on a cursory search that sports player contracts, and possibly football specifically, are a notable subject. (See eg. [1][2].) Is there an article you would consider a suitable merge target until there is enough content for this article not to be a stub? It could make sense to tie this in to a broader topic where it could be cultivated or whatever rather than leaving it languishing on its own, but absent an obvious merge target, it should be kept. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese:I looked for an article on sports contracts generally and did not see one. Nor did I see articles on baseball contracts, gridiron football contracts, basketball contracts, etc. I would think an article on Sports Contracts would be notable, but a separate article for each sport would seem excessive to me. --dashiellx (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely a notable topic, needs expansion not deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude:How is an association football contract more notable than a baseball contract or any other sport. Articles do not exists for those either. I would see the value of an article on Sports Contracts of which this article would be a part of. --dashiellx (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, someone might wish to move the article to some variation of sport contract and expand it to cover other sports. That isn't an argument for outright deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving and expanding would be more appropriate than keeping this article. I just let this sit for now to let others have a say. --dashiellx (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand per Chris above. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris. Needs improvement, not deletion. Giant Snowman 13:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is clearly a notable topic and definitely a plausible search term so should be improved rather than outright deleted. Whether this should be merged into a more general sports contracts article is something we should do on the talk page. This article could be expanded to include many key cases such as Bosman ruling, Herbert Kingaby, George Eastham, Carlos Tevez as well as commentary on the progression of caps on players' salaries and other restrictions on contracts. Not sure how reliable these sources are but they definitely discuss this topic in detail Spartacus Sporting Intel EFL Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Why are the keep voters ignoring notability policy in this discussion? GNG has not been proven. There's not significant independent coverage on this topic. The only independent reliable ref I could find was [3] and it's a passing mention. Nothing in PROQUEST, JSTOR, EBSCOE, nothing in my university library, nothing of note in newspapers, etc. All of the sources Spiderone cited have issues. spartacus-educational.com is self published. https://www.sportingintelligence.com/about-us/ accepts and publishes content from anyone (not professional journalists or experts); and www.efl.com is the news arm of a professional sporting body that uses these contracts and so it lacks independence even if its reliable. All of this to say, yes this exists but we still have to prove GNG. Note to closer please consider the lack of policy based reasoning in the keep votes.4meter4 (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the exception of Spiderone (talk · contribs), none of the above keep votes offer any policy based reason for their claims of notability. I find 4meter4 (talk · contribs)'s analysis of the sources more compelling. There simply hasn't been any proof that ssources satisfy GNG. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.