Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contract year phenomenon

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. Consensus was clear for keeping the article. Inappropriate content issues are not issues for WP:AFD, they should instead be referred to WP:Edit. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contract year phenomenon[edit]

It is a buzzword, and I am not sure it warrants an article of its own. It also was a magnet for WP:BLP-violating abuse, because users would just list their favourite hate player on that page. I would either delete or merge with some more relevant article relating to sports contracts. Onomatopoeia (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep I'm finding articles supporting the term, (and I will add them in presently,) so it seems to be worth a valid stub. Besides, according to WP:VANDAL deleting an article because it's being vandalized is not wise, because it emboldens the terrorists. -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking back through the history of the page, I do not necessarily agree that all the claims you edited out rise to the level of a BLP violation. While there were certainly some claims that were not sourced, others were. BLP is not to be used to remove sourced claims, no matter how unflattering. I'm posting a comment at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for another set of eyes. -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point, but an entire section of the page was called "Erick Dampier", as if Dampier's only contribution to NBA history was his overpaid contract. That needs to stop. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if rewritten and referenced - As it stood, the entire article was a string of logical fallacies and unsupported bald assertions of bad faith behavior. Iff the article is rewritten and referenced to refer to the probably-encyclopedic accusations that some players engage in this, then it should be kept. But if it's refilled with said logical fallacies and pissed-off-fan accusations, then it must be nuked. FCYTravis (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. I'm not defending the status quo diff per se, and I certainly don't object to removing unsourced claims. I just prefer the surgical scalpel to the AfD cleaver. I've tossed in the {{rescue}} donut, to see if someone is willing to help this one out more than I already have. -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment We had a similar discussion with Ball hog. IIRC, Kobe Bryant was called a "ball hog" by ESPN.com in one particular game, but his detractors used it to justify putting in a pic of Bryant with the caption "Kobe Bryant is considered the prime example of a ball hog". For similarly flimsy reasons, Dwyane Wade and Allen Iverson were listed. All are obviously incorrect. In the end, all names were kept out but the article remained. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another whining sports-fan buzzword, and one I doubt has risen to the level of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Transwiki to wiktionary.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:16, 21 February 2008 (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.