Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's association football


 * 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   snowball keep -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Women's association football

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Why do we need separate articles about women's sports when we don't have specific articles about men's sports? It is discrimination. Maybe because men's professional sports are more common and popular? Then, Why don't we have an article about women's facial hair? It's more common in men. Or maybe men with long hair? It is far more common in women. --JustEase (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Comment — Perhaps take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST before pointing out the absence of similar articles. Eisfbnore talk 21:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like Twinkle broke and failed to complete Step 1 and part of Step 2. It has been fixed. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep by default do to nonsensical nomination. We don't delete an article because another article doesn't exist.  Besides, Association football covers the equivalent men's game. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep; nomination rationale amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and offers no deletion-policy based reason for deletion. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the subject of women's association football has been subject to innumerable reliable sources, meeting of policies. Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST arguments. Also, just because you (the nominator) feel something isn't politically correct, doesn't mean we can't have an article about it. After all, Wikipedia isn't censored. Arsenikk (talk)  21:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Men and women play the same game. Why can't it be covered by one article? JustEase (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep When someone uses the term association football, they are almost always talking about the men's game. That's just how it is. Women's football is not always covered by this term and so should have its own article. Football is far too broad to be covered in a single article. Also, going by your logic, the Premier League, Serie A and every other league in the world should be merged into a single article. After all, they all operate in the same way... Andrew vdBK  ( talk ) 22:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. We do have an article on men's association football. It's located at Association football. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Would the nom care to propound a valid argument for deletion? What policy or guideline does he claim this article violates? (That being said, this is the nom's third straight AfD with a unanimous Keep consensus.  I strongly suggest he review deletion policy and gain a better understanding of how AfD is handled on the English Wikipedia before filing any others.)    Ravenswing  00:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's always nice to wake up to find an AfD without any kind of footing whatsoever. GiantSnowman 12:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep When women and men play on the same team then it's the same game. I look forward to the AfDs for Women's rugby union, Women's basketball, Women's cricket etc. Also, we do have an article about women's facial hair, there's Bearded women, will that do? More seriously, the article could be renamed 'history of women's association football', which is essentially what it is. With the exception of the pictures, there's no gender assumption on the page for association football, so in fact women get 2 articles, men get 1.Stu.W UK (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see the nominator's point - putting women on a pedestal is nothing more than removing them to a position above society and into a gilded cage. This poorly planned and executed article doesn't help. I did find a source to support the WP:GNG of the topic -- Now's all we need is someone who can give the topic the care it deserves. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is necessary to keep pages on the women in sports. And to improve the pages of women in sports. There is a considerable cost to the encyclopedia to eliminate its pages....Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help (references Wikipedia: This is a man's world, Where Are the Women in Wikipedia?. It is necessary to preserve this page and to improve it.--Geneviève (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, this seems like a bad faith/WP:POINTy nomination rather than a serious one. As others have noted above, the article on association football predominantly covers men's football, because it is the mainstream form of the sport. Women's football is notable enough and different enough to deserve a separate article: it's the very fact that it's the less common variant that makes it notable. (Here's a parallel: we have an article on Men's skirts because it is unusual in most countries for men to wear skirts. The article on women's skirts is simply called Skirt.) The claim that the existence of this article is 'discrimination' is, frankly, laughable. Robofish (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator has offered no criteria for deletion, and as far as I see, the article is notable and sufficiently sourced for start-class. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2011 (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.