Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Unofficial Football World Championships


 * 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 MERGE to Unofficial Football World Championships and convert to redirect. I have created the redirect and will leave the merge to the judgement of those that edit the material. Whether it is "fair" to redirect the Women's and not the Men's falls under WP:WAX, and as Luke points out, we aren't here to right great wrongs. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  18:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Women's Unofficial Football World Championships

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The (men's) Unofficial Football World Championships is barely notable, this simply isn't. No evidence of reliable source attention given to the women's championship beyond the UFWC message-boards. "Tracking the championship" and "UFWC at major championships" are overlong narratives given to what is a virtual title not conceptualized until the mid 2000s. LukeSurlt c 11:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge very selectively to Unofficial Football World Championships, which is worded almost identically and seems, in effect, to be about a book by Paul Brown, largely cited to primary sources (or sources by Brown). I'd be tempted to nominate Unofficial Football World Championships to be quite honest, filled as it is with off topic fan cruft and lengthy stats. Needs a major clean up, though unfortunately there are so many male footy fans on Wikipedia it will be a thankless battle I expect! Sionk (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - As the article state, an unofficial championship. No real coverage of this, as the "championship" is inherently just a function of some stats, hence why almost all the sources cited are to either primary sources or stat sites. Fenix down (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep if possible, merge if necessary. It's somewhat notable, but mostly because the men's version is notable.  That makes me want to merge it, but I'm disinclined to make a women's soccer page just a subset of a men's page.  It seems to send the wrong message, somehow. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The men's championship can make an weak case for notability as it is very occasionally mentioned in news media. This isn't the case for the women's analogue, which is only covered on the UFWC message boards (where it was invented). This is a clear-cut failure of the GNG. While this somewhat reflects the inequality of men's and women's sports, Wikipedia cannot be the place to right great wrongs. --LukeSurlt c 12:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Unofficial Football World Championships. GiantSnowman 18:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article needs improvement, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Smallchief (talk 21:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Beyond a statistical database, the Women's Unofficial Football World Championships has not been mentioned in a single reliable source outside of the UFWC website. This article fails WP:NOTSTATS as it consists entirely of a narrative constructed around . Considering this database stops at 2006, I can only assume that 2006-2014 data is original research. --LukeSurlt c 09:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete completely fails WP:GNG as well as running up against WP:NOTSTATS. Also, since notability is not inherited, Coemgenus's comment above suggesting parity is inapposite. Improvement cannot save an article which is solely the domain of a single forum. --Bejnar (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2014 (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.