Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labour relations in 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 03:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Labour relations in women's association football

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod denied. Not really a stand alone article, and likely to rewrite it as such would be OR/SYNTH UtherSRG (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Law, Politics, Sexuality and gender, Sports, and Football. UtherSRG (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic appears notable and certainly has coverage, but it needs a much better name. Giant Snowman 22:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gender pay gap in sports. Gender pay gap is a notable issue in women’s sports and I don’t see this as an exception, but there is not enough properly sourced encyclopedic content here to merit a stand alone article, as such is it an unneeded CFORK. This is basically a list of strikes and disputes, the article has no context, background, or content on the the actual topic. // Timothy :: talk 09:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, and if not that then don't redirect to Gender pay gap in sports. That specific redirect would be excessively reductive since there are several labour disputes with notable coverage about top-division leagues that are unrelated to gender pay gaps. There've been prominent disputes over player agency, abuse of players and misconduct by coaches, poor housing and training conditions, lacking minimum facility standards, and age limits on players, all of which have come up just in the NWSL. Also over medical treatment standards in A-League Women, and whether La Liga Femenina could legally be professionalized in Spain. Even the disputes at the club and league levels over pay are rarely about pay equity, but rather for a minimum standard of living. There have also been labour disputes for professionalization and minimum standards among women's league referees, particularly in the United States, not related to gender pay gaps (many of the referees are men) but over training and improvement (though in Spain, over pay also). I don't think the article as-is is equipped for this, and it might not need to exist, but I'd rather see someone take a shot at covering the breadth of issues rather than redirecting to a narrow slice that's mostly been limited to international players. -71.34.68.140 (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting also the context of women's football as part of a broader labour movement: Professional women's footballers striking with Nabisco workers, a women's football union executive director is on the AFL-CIO executive council, women's football union as a founding member of AFL-CIO's sports council, PFA founding a women's department in 2020 and facilitating maternity rights, Sara Bjork Gunnarsdottir's materinty pay case vs. Olympique Lyon. Draftifying this article would allow broader themes to be connected with a scope that would be inappropriate as sections of club or league pages. -71.34.68.140 (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporated some of the above sources. -Socccc (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I created this page originally as a draft with the intent of expanding it into a full article on the history and issues of labour relations in women's football, from it's role in the labour movement in the early 20th century to modern day strikes and labour disputes to issues like maternity rights as professional workers to the gender pay gap and etc... I've been too busy to put a lot of work into it recently, and when I last looked at it, it was still an unfinished draft that needed a lot of work. NHCLS (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per GiantSnowman. Clearly notable topic with sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify - There is enough sources to have a notable article or create a draft article. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep noteable and well referenced.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a well-researched piece and a lot of it would be lost if we merged it to somewhere else like Gender pay gap in sports or, worse, deleted it. Many of the sources linked above show that this article can be expanded further. This is absolutely the sort of thing that Wikipedia does well and the project would lose something if this article went. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep particularly for the reasons given in the two comments above. --Bduke (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Australia, Canada, Argentina, Jamaica, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely a notable topic (possibly needing a title change). And agreed with 71.34 that a merge or redirect to articles about pay would be inappropriate, given that the labor issues in question are broader (c.f. the NWSL abuse scandal). Legoktm (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2023 (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.