- 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 delete. The consensus among participants is that this subject doesn't have adequate sourcing providing SIGCOV at this point in time. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. For this to succeed though, better sources will have to be located. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Arsenal Women 2–3 Wolfsburg Women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this article does not meet WP:NSPORTSEVENT (the specific notability guideline for a single match) nor any general notability guidelines. This is because it is not an individually notable match in itself, as just one of a series of knockout games in regular competition, and because it does not appear to have much media coverage that is not WP:ROUTINE. It therefore does not meet any of the four criteria for NSPORTSEVENT, and the lack of non-primary sourcing prevents it from meeting GNG. Kingsif (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Still holds the record as the match with the biggest attendance in women's club football on English soil. I added some non-routine coverage. --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lyndis Parlour: The sources you have linked (without actually adding any article content, just the sources) are, top to bottom: a non-RS that is a player interview mentioning the game in passing (see SIGCOV), an Arsenal fan blog than lauds the game's attendance (see SPS), and a simple list of match attendance figures (see DATABASE). None of these are suitable for use in the article (which I think you actually know, just putting them in as external links), let alone establishing notability. Kingsif (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. I was waiting for someone to try and present notability-establishing sources; the article's advocate has made an attempt but seems to know they can't. Kingsif (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, Germany, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This match is very notable and represents a historic moment in the history of women's football in England. This is also reflected in the links and references provided with the article that comment from a range of reputable sources. The article was written to detail the history and to provide information about the game both from UEFA, media outlets and players to provide historical context to the events that occurred. I have now added even more links. This game is far more significant than any standard game of football and any consideration that is isn't suggests that that person is not well informed on women's football - a chronically underreported sport and poorly represented on Wikipedia. Which of the reference sources from itv, ESPN, the Guardian, the New York Times, and BBC sport aren't considered notable by @Kingsif? As noted in this "Some games or series are likely or almost certain to be considered notable, including but not limited to the following:" the list given are just examples. In the history of Women's football, this game is a match of note. The coverage alone makes that clear. The quotes from the players about the match also made that clear but they were deleted from the article. Notability is often so subjective with articles on this platform and too many people have an agenda to devalue perfectly notable articles because of their subject matter. Perhaps @Kingsif is not familiar with what is considered routine coverage at this point in time in the women's game to note the difference. Evmoon (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- You do not have any sources that say the match either
represents a historic moment in the history of women's football in England
oris far more significant than any standard game of football
. UEFA match reports, and match reports from RS outlets, are still WP:ROUTINE coverage, which I implore you to actually read and understand before asserting that others don't know what routine coverage is. What you personally think is notable is not the same as Wikipedia's notability guidelines. - Stop with the bad faith accusations. There is a difference between making sure we create and maintain N-compliant articles focused on women's topics and (something too many people try to do now:) making stubby articles about non-notable women's topics just to boost the quantity without care for quality, overall harming the intention of gender parity in Wikipedia coverage.
- As this discussion is about N-compliant sources, I will assess the sources you have added. These three; two for saying the match was the first time Arsenal W.F.C. had sold out the main stadium (TBF, a logical assumption) - one of these being a press release from the club itself (see PRIMARY) - and the other a passing mention that due to ticket sales in this and other matches, the main stadium would continue to be used. Look, I am sure it is possible to find the minimum of three non-routine, non-SPS, SIGCOV, RS sources about the match if you really try. The question is to ask yourself: does this a standalone article warrant. Or is the actual notable content that can be gleaned from those sources simply better suited as a "they set the attendance record for a women's club football game in England and sold out the Emirates" mention at the 2022–23 Arsenal W.F.C. season article. Kingsif (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- You do not have any sources that say the match either
- This match is very notable and represents a historic moment in the history of women's football in England. This is also reflected in the links and references provided with the article that comment from a range of reputable sources. The article was written to detail the history and to provide information about the game both from UEFA, media outlets and players to provide historical context to the events that occurred. I have now added even more links. This game is far more significant than any standard game of football and any consideration that is isn't suggests that that person is not well informed on women's football - a chronically underreported sport and poorly represented on Wikipedia. Which of the reference sources from itv, ESPN, the Guardian, the New York Times, and BBC sport aren't considered notable by @Kingsif? As noted in this "Some games or series are likely or almost certain to be considered notable, including but not limited to the following:" the list given are just examples. In the history of Women's football, this game is a match of note. The coverage alone makes that clear. The quotes from the players about the match also made that clear but they were deleted from the article. Notability is often so subjective with articles on this platform and too many people have an agenda to devalue perfectly notable articles because of their subject matter. Perhaps @Kingsif is not familiar with what is considered routine coverage at this point in time in the women's game to note the difference. Evmoon (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete The fact that's it's the best attended women's football match in England would be a reason to mention that in a list article about attendences if one existed. However, it does not make the match itself automatically notable as some people above are trying to do. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage, so doesn't need a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- FYI List of women's association football attendance records - which actually shows that two more recent club matches in England had larger attendance, too. The record is currently held by Chelsea F.C. Women and Manchester United W.F.C. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Subject does not meet WP:NSPORTSEVENT nor WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage. Let'srun (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have added more sources to demonstrate the coverage. It is also worth noting that there is not a black and white rule for the specific notability guideline for a single match (WP:NSPORTSEVENT). Considering the historic lack of coverage of some topics over others, careful judgement must be used when considering impact. Such a sporting event should be considered in the context of the competition it is in (this case the UWCL), the history of the sport/the event/ and the country it occurred in. In this case this match represented a record for the club, the competition in the UK and an attendance record in the UK for all of Women's football at the time it occurred. It was a significant event that had consequences for subsequent matches and the business of women's football beyond this period. The additional source demonstrate the widespread acceptance by main stream sources at the significance of this record. Evmoon (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your "additional sources" were both published on or before (The Guardian's quote piece) the day the match was played, so I don't know where you get the boldness to say they demonstrate
widespread acceptance by main stream sources at the significance
that wasbeyond this period
. One of them just quotes the manager saying it's great they sold out, and the other is yet another match report. And please stop using AI to write your replies. You keep saying there's nothing cut-and-dry about NSPORTSEVENT, and yet even before the "it should be a final or incredibly notable" list, the guideline outright says coverage needs to be WP:SUSTAINED no matter what. I only keep replying because you do not bring sources in this discussion for them to be judged, it'd be easier for us both if you did. Kingsif (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I must say the rudeness on this platform is quite astounding. The barriers to contribute are high and people are mean. Nothing on this page has been made up and AI was not used to write the reply. You really need to check your assumptions. Every example you give is still a subjective metric. Evmoon (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Non-routine coverage for more than a week is not a subjective metric. This is not the place to discuss how you've been prompted to understand notability guidelines for four years but it's not mean or rude to criticise a lack of attempt in that department. Kingsif (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I must say the rudeness on this platform is quite astounding. The barriers to contribute are high and people are mean. Nothing on this page has been made up and AI was not used to write the reply. You really need to check your assumptions. Every example you give is still a subjective metric. Evmoon (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your "additional sources" were both published on or before (The Guardian's quote piece) the day the match was played, so I don't know where you get the boldness to say they demonstrate
- I have added more sources to demonstrate the coverage. It is also worth noting that there is not a black and white rule for the specific notability guideline for a single match (WP:NSPORTSEVENT). Considering the historic lack of coverage of some topics over others, careful judgement must be used when considering impact. Such a sporting event should be considered in the context of the competition it is in (this case the UWCL), the history of the sport/the event/ and the country it occurred in. In this case this match represented a record for the club, the competition in the UK and an attendance record in the UK for all of Women's football at the time it occurred. It was a significant event that had consequences for subsequent matches and the business of women's football beyond this period. The additional source demonstrate the widespread acceptance by main stream sources at the significance of this record. Evmoon (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: - Fails both WP:NSPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. One of a number of matches that held attendance records for a relatively short while. I don't see any evidence that it was
a significant event that had consequences for subsequent matches and the business of women's football beyond this period
but rather it was an illustration of the rapid increase in popularity of womens football. --John B123 (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) - Delete – For all the arguments above. The match itself is only valid as a reference for the audience record, but it does not support WP:GNG for a dedicated article. Svartner (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete—Obvious per everything above. Anwegmann (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2025 (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.