Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female American football 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. Consensus that there is sufficient sourcing to establish notability (and a dose of WP:HEY). (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

List of female American football players

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Seems like an original compilation and thus fails WP:OR (the whole of the prose is also entirely unsourced), and probably isn't quite accurate (for example, this only mentions "About a dozen women have played college football at various levels"; which is well below the nearly two dozen included here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people,  and American football. North America1000 13:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, due to the amount of WP:TNT that would be needed to turn this into an appropriate list. Lack of citations for the prose leads me to believe that it is largely questionable WP:OR that also violates WP:NPOV; inclusion criteria are entirely arbitrary (the lead says they are notable, but only a tiny minority of those listed have articles); in addition there are sections for non-players and fictional characters – with more blue links than there are for the players! wjematherplease leave a message... 16:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Upon further thought, Women in American football (which currently redirects to this list) is the appropriate subject for an article, and it could easily contain a list of people who are actually notable. Normally I would support a move and cleanup/fix here but, as stated, the prose is completely uncited and TNT is needed. wjematherplease leave a message... 07:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Paulmcdonald for finding sources to support the topic as a group, that can be used in citing the prose/writing a new article. However, unless I see evidence of substantial progress in fixing this mess, I am not inclined to amend my !vote. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Amending vote to keep. TNT has in effect been applied (much thanks to User:Cielquiparle), although further work remains to be done. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep extraordinarily notable topic with clear passes of WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. For the prose and content, that clearly needs cleaned up.  But AFD is not cleanup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources that support your assertion, WP:ITSNOTABLE adds nothing. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 23:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mean besides the 131 that are already in the article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Which of these sources, if any, does anything more than provide coverage of the individual player(s)? (Specific quotes would be helpful.) wjematherplease leave a message... 21:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do some of your own work. The article is broadly sour sourced, if you want to dismiss all 131 sources, you should actually really dismiss some of them yourself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * examples this isn't hard. You can read the source please.  Here's a few I pulled, but this is undue work.
 * 1) CBS Sports 2017 "Fuller joins Katie Hnida and April Goss as the only women to play in an FBS game. Hnida kicked two extra points for New Mexico against Texas State in 2003. She transferred to New Mexico from Colorado, where she did dress out but did not play in a game for the Buffaloes. Goss, who played at Kent State, kicked an extra point against Delaware State in 2015."
 * 2) Tuscaloosa News Sep 12, 2003 "...she is believed to be the first woman to kick a field goal in an NCAA football game..."
 * 3) KHSAA Oct 26, 2016 "Over the past three decades there probably have been dozens of girls who’ve followed in Bates’ footsteps in Kentucky. This season, for example, Hailey Chappell has booted two field goals and 25 extra points for Owen County, and Ermina Ramic has had a PAT for Southwestern."
 * 4) CNN April 13, 2017 "According to ESPN, about a dozen women are known to have played college football, though none under athletic scholarship. But Rosenbach said he wasn't thinking about the historical aspect when he offered her a scholarship. It was her accuracy."
 * 5) Boston Globe, Nov 15, 2017 "Girls gaining acceptance on Eastern Massachusetts high school football gridirons"
 * 6) Oregon Live, Nov 20, 2013 "It’s not uncommon these days when a high school football team has a female as its placekicker. But two girls in one game? That was the scene last Friday in a Class 4A quarterfinal game, where Scappoose and North Bend each used a female placekicker in the Bulldogs' 21-20 win."
 * Oh, please. Of course I checked a few of the more likely candidates, but do not expect anyone to trawl through 130+ sources, none of which are placed in the body of prose (which is where sigcov needs to be demonstrated), with almost nothing but trivial routine coverage. I have to think there are better sources than the extremely poor ones you have picked out (the Boston Globe being the only one that comes close to what we need) - I would have expected at least one good book source for this subject; however, if extremely brief throwaway lines and vague speculation ("believed to be", "probably... dozens", "about a dozen", etc.) are the best there is, it is nowhere near enough to meet notability guidelines. Where is the necessary depth of significant coverage? wjematherplease leave a message... 00:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone argue that there are too many sources in an article as a reason to delete. Here's more from a quick google search--I'm unsure if any of these sources are referenced in the article or not: Clearly meets WP:GNG, WP:LISTN... WP:IMPACT... Do I have to keep doing this?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Sporting News July 5, 2017 "As part of her role as the NFL's director of football development, Rapoport is tasked with helping ensure females are afforded chances to prosper at all levels in a male-dominated league. The groundbreaking advancements of women in scouting, coaching and officiating this offseason have Rapoport feeling bullish about the progress made in her first full year on the job."
 * 2) Sports Illustrated Aug 3, 2020 "About 5 years back, Rapoport pitched an idea to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, with the hopes of building a bridge for women who love football and want to work in football, but don’t necessarily have the resources or connections at their fingertips. That pitch has since developed into the Women’s Careers in Football Forum, which is a two-day event that runs alongside the NFL Scouting Combine."
 * 3) Share America Sep 1, 2021 "The National Football League (NFL) will open its 2021 season in September with a record 12 women working as coaches.  The increase reflects the NFL’s effort to provide greater opportunity for women in a sport played predominantly by men. The NFL created the Women’s Careers in Football Forum in 2017, which recruits women for full-time jobs in the sport."
 * 4) SB Nation Dec 9, 2019 "51 reasons it’s time to stop treating women and girls in football like sideshows"
 * 5) The Journal Times May 18, 2022 "The WFA is a women’s semi-pro football league that plays full-contact games, following NCAA rules."
 * 6) MSN News May 21, 2022 "I think women's sports is something that's growing constantly, especially football," Walter said. "And honestly, there's not a lot of opportunity."
 * 7) CFL "NINE PARTICIPANTS SELECTED FOR WOMEN IN FOOTBALL PROGRAM PRESENTED BY KPMG"
 * 8) CBS Sports May 18, 2022 "The NFL is filled with trailblazing women, making history by being the first female to fill their role. Now more than ever, the number of women is increasing in the league."
 * 9) Toronto Sun May 7, 2022 "In 2019, 104 hopefuls signed up when Andy Castellarin asked who was interested in playing on a girls football team at St. Mark, a Manotick high school already rich in tradition in boys football. The end result was 74 players."
 * 10) USA Today Feb 4, 2019 "Berg’s decision to include Gordon was not only an acknowledgement of all she’s accomplished but a nod towards the future that equals a more level playing field for women."
 * 11) Huffington Post Nov 7, 2012 "Given her young age and limited experience, Sam shows much promise and could stand to benefit from a recent trend of female football players breaking down barriers.  In October, eighth-grade student Amina Barrett suited up as both a linebacker and running back for her middle-school squad in Houston, according to Yahoo!. Similarly, back in September, Erin DiMeglio made history when she became the first woman to play quarterback for a high school football team..."
 * 12) KSL.com May 20, 2015 "Twelve-year-old football sensation Samantha Gordon will no longer be the only girl to score a touchdown this summer."
 * You know perfectly well no one is making that argument. Why are you listing sources that are about non-players? Do you not understand what is required here? Please read my !vote above if you haven't already. wjematherplease leave a message... 07:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I am done addressing the comments from wjemather. I write this for anyone else who comes along and is seeking clarity. Here's a short list of articles about female players discussed as a group and specifically the impact that some individuals have had on the group as a whole. I am now done with this song-and-dance routine. I don't dance. The facts have been presented multiple times from an abundance of high-quality widely accepted reliable third party sources. Those arguing for deletion are refusing to do the work to support their argument and I'm tired of continuing to provide the detail to support the argument to keep. May the closer do as they see fit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) list of 51 players
 * 2) talks about an entire league of women's football
 * 3) about 74 female althletes playing tackle football
 * 4) Samantha Gordon is a player
 * Thanks for finally (at least partially) addressing what was being asked (FYI, you should know that the burden of proof is on those advocating to keep). As per my comments above, the sources actually support having a Women in American football article, which could then include the list of notables (since there don't appear to be very many), but what we have at the moment is a long list of mostly non-notables who happen to have been mentioned in passing somewhere. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep no case for deletion made. "Seems like an original compilation" isn't a deletion rationale, if you want it deleted for being original research then you need to show it actually is original research, and that does include reading the sources. The fact that one of the sections is unsourced does not make it original research and it not a reason for deletion - per WP:ATD deletion is only for problems which cannot be fixed through editing. The claim that this link shows the article is inaccurate doesn't hold water, it mentions in passing that "About a dozen women have played college football at various levels", so they haven't done a systematic survey or even given a precise figure, and since that page was published in 2017 five years ago it may well be out of date anyway. Several of the examples given have obviously played since 2017.  Hut 8.5  12:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Seems like an original compilation and thus fails WP:OR" is a valid WP:DELREASON (no. 6) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually being original research (and irredemably so) would be a valid deletion reason, yes. But I'd expect more of an argument than "seems like it", and at least one of the people supporting deletion admits they haven't read the sources, which is necessary to conclude that something is original research.  Hut 8.5  07:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No you don't. Which of the zero citations in the main body of prose, which unquestionably reads like OR, would you have us read? There can be no expectation that any of the other citations (regardless of how many there are) support the prose. Additionally, when claims are as woolly as these are (believed to be, about, etc.) sources will commonly disagree and so the claims must be attributed to the source - for example, above, CNN start by saying "according to ESPN". wjematherplease leave a message... 08:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said before, fixable problems, such as a section being unsourced or claims not being attributed to the source, are not reasons to delete an article. See the deletion policy.  Hut 8.5  11:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You contend they are fixable; I disagree and suspect (as they do) that the ongoing work by Cielquiparle (below) will effectively be TNT if successful. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTN and secondary coverage of the group or set, e.g. ‘Here's the football heroine’: female American football players, 1890–1912 (Sport in History 2020), “The first woman football coach...“: A Media Study of Female American Football Coaches, 1888-1946 (Feminist Media Studies 2022), ‘Getting Noticed, Respected, and Supported’: Mediated (In)Visibilities of Women's American Football in the United States (2021, in Bowes, A. and Culvin, A. (Ed.) The Professionalisation of Women’s Sport, pp. 123-139), Psychological factors and performance in women’s football: A systematic review (The Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Am I supposed to take a laugh at sources like which is clearly about proper football and not the American hand-egg variant? Again, like with the other lists, the sources here would seem to be a far better fit for an article about Women in American football than for a list on the subject. Not every notable topic requires a list about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  22:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We are all fallible, and after reviewing the other sources about "American football", I had noticed that source includes studies of "American football players from collegiate level", etc, but missed the distinction of that overall study. But the other sources help support the notability of the group or set, so a list is permitted per our guidelines, and an online search finds more sources talking about the group, e.g. American football: Sarah Fuller makes history as first woman in a Power 5 game (BBC, 2020), The female American Football coach breaking barriers on and off the pitch (BBC3). Beccaynr (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I will attempt major surgery on this list now, and I'm not sure if I'll succeed. It may indeed be a case of WP:TNT – that's how bad it is – but for now I will try not to let the patient die in the process. Does a list on this topic deserve to exist? Absolutely. But over the years, the list page became a free for all with no oversight, with anonymous editors (and others) adding unsourced content, OR, and non-NPOV, as well as content cut and paste from Women's gridiron football (and probably other places), not to mention non-notable individuals and details that are either irrelevant or don't belong in an encyclopedia list page; and over time, the list page turned into an "article" that has become extremely difficult for anyone to fix. The only way to justify keeping this list is if all the extraneous content is cut, which could be 50% of the current content or more. I will try to temporarily park any information that looks like it could be useful on the Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good luck. I will change my !vote accordingly should a suitable article/list begin to emerge. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Beccaynr.-- Mvqr (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant and inferior to a self-updating category. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it may take some work to rehab this article after its "major surgery", including to discuss the Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists guideline on the Talk page, but earlier versions of this article may be helpful to review for addressing a concern that the article is currently redundant and inferior to a self-updating category, per WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool. I will add the criteria for inclusion for each section, how we pared down the page so far, and how I suggest to expand moving forward, on the Talk page. The list itself is definitely more than a self-updating category, as the sub-categories are quite different topically, but now at least we also have cross-referenced other compilations like The Women's Football Encyclopedia. (And per your earlier comments on your Talk page, I've tried to err on the side of making sure each entry offers more information rather than less.) I've also tried to move more of the background information to the main Article page Women's gridiron football, though obviously it's still a work in progress. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Stifle I am all for self-updating categories vs. manually updated lists where it make sense, but I don't think this particular List falls into this category. For one thing, the names alone don't provide enough information – there is a huge difference between female players who happened to appear in 1–2 men's football games as a placekicker pre-2000 when it was still pretty rare vs. the women who became career football players in various other positions in the 1970s and then after 2000 (most in female leagues but some in male leagues). In other words, there is value to the curation into sub-sections and to providing more detail/context per list entry. This List page itself receives considerable traffic (644k+ over time, with 12k and 24k spikes corresponding with external events) and has been the subject of media coverage/review (as a source of "facts" but also reviewed along with other pages) (see AV Club article). On a tangential note, I am wondering if you looked at the page quickly using the Vector 2022 skin and if so, did the fact that the Contents index now appears in the margin (left nav) actually obscure the fact that there was more to this List page than just one Section? If so...that is interesting to note and we might consider ways to make clearer what Sections / sub-topics are covered on the page. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, looking at the page again...I think the issue is that there is one large sub-section I haven't reviewed properly yet, which is pretty high up on the page (Players in predominantly female football leagues). It's arguably the most important part of the List page, but I had saved it for last for a line-by-line review and adding citations; the thinking was, at least most of those pages are likely to have plausible notability and sources somewhere, since they already have Wikipedia pages (we deleted the rest for now). Anyway I am working on this section now, so hopefully within the next 48 hours it will be clearer why it's useful to have this on a manually curated List page rather than an automated one. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks to everyone who has helped to clean up the page and provided article links, comments, and suggestions. If you are new to this discussion, this is where the page started on 21 May 2022 when it was nominated for deletion, and this is what it looks like now. Below are the sub-sections that have now been removed from this List page, mainly because they aren't female American football players and were cluttering the list (I can't take credit for the deletion, someone else boldly did it for me; perhaps these characters and real-life individuals could have their own List page(s) in the future):
 * Fictional women in football
 * Female coaches
 * Female commentators
 * Female front office staff
 * Female owners
 * In addition, I removed the following section for reasons explained in detail on the article Talk page:
 * Youth players (Middle school, Grades 7–9)
 * Another major change was that we tried to move as much of the prose section that used to be on this List page to the main Women's gridiron football Article page as possible. ALL of the prose lacked citations previously and some of it was possibly OR (in which case it was deleted or heavily edited with sources added); some of it simply duplicated the main Article page. In any case, part of the problem with this List page historically was that the Article page wasn't doing its job, making it tempting for people to cram more and more prose onto the List page (without sources). Moving forward, more attention needs to be paid to improving the main Article page itself.
 * The remaining sections were re-ordered (so that high school players appear last, college players second-to-last). We then went ahead and deleted anyone on the very long list who lacked citations (although I did try to add as many sources wherever we could), as well as anyone who lacked any plausible notability claim. Simply being a female football player and/or having 1–2 articles written about you aren't enough. There are literally over 10,000 female football players listed in the 2016 edition of The Women's Football Encyclopedia and it doesn't make sense to make a list of all of them on Wikipedia. For now. While we're struggling with quality control of the information that is there.
 * Other than that, I'm still going through each and every single entry on the List page, line by line, checking and cross-referencing and editing and adding sources. It is very much a work in progress. If this List were an easy fix, it would have been fixed by now and wouldn't have landed in AfD. Part of the problem, besides the List page turning into a free-for-all, was that history was literally being made during the lifetime of the List page – it was trying to capture a moving target – so of course the information, the stats, and the criteria for inclusion would change over time. The good news is that there are many great secondary sources now available covering this topic, including many new books and articles published between 2016–2021, which have been helpful in cross-referencing and checking the information on this list. I am committed to continuing to fix the List and Article pages, and am very open to discussion of specific issues and ideas on those Talk pages, but as there is still a long way to go, I thought it would be good to provide my !vote and update in the meantime so there is no confusion. I am happy to support keeping this page now, and am excited to see how it develops in the future – with guardrails. We aren't doing female American football players justice, if we are burying genuinely notable achievements in a sea of clutter and inaccurate information, and leaving it unfindable and difficult to navigate, read, make sense of, and trust. Thanks everyone. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep A broad, general topic like this is almost impossible to not meet WP:LISTN: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. Check. The remaining delete rationales (after a few strikes) are all counter to the WP:ATD policy: Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases..—Bagumba (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Some have their own articles, others just have significant coverage so belong on the list.  D r e a m Focus  20:41, 2 June 2022 (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.