Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japan–United States women's soccer rivalry

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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Japan–United States women's soccer rivalry

Japan–United States women's soccer rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: So there's NY Times, Fox Soccer, The Guardian... the list goes on. Did the OP even do a basic search?! Seany91 (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did. The Guardian mentions it's a rivalry in passing. The NY Times only uses "rivalry" in the title of the article. This isn't a derby by any stretch of the imagination. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...and the moving goalposts regarding women's soccer notability strikes again. WP editor: "No evidence of notability whatsoever!" NY Times: "This seems like a significant rivalry; let's show you how the teams had done in the past." WP editor: "The word rivalry was only in the title!" Seany91 (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add more then: FiveThirtyEight did a deep dive ahead of the 2015 WWC Final; Bleacher Report did the same; an entire study was done about coverage of this rivalry (IIRC

WP:BIAS in the media not covering women's sports and negatively impacting notability, but this is a case where notability is so clear lol. Seany91 (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - the article needs improving but there is enough out there as demonstrated above. The rivalry is written about in all sorts of places. It even has a non-trivial mention in this book by Cynthia Lewis. Seany91's cited sources are enough to meet the guidelines in my view. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• American sports often has difficulty determining what is and is not a rivalry because sports journalists will commonly use the word "rivals" even when a true derby doesn't exist, see for instance the discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Panthers–Seahawks_rivalry_(2nd_nomination). I still don't see anything - even in the Cynthia Lewis book - that actually makes me think this rises to the level of a derby. The Fivethirtyeight and Prost Seany91 quoted only mentions a rivalry in quoting the team's coach, Bleacher Report isn't a RS but only uses the word rivalry in passing. Not taking away anything from the three big games they played against each other in the 2010s but we're far, far away from say a topic of West Brom-Wolves. SportingFlyer T·C 13:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I've been looking through newspaper reports the day before and the day of the 2015 World Cup final. Only one sportswriter I've seen so far (Los Angeles Times) calls it a "budding rivalry" in passing. This is all
  WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 13:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Notability of rivalries, especially when the two teams are not close to each other in the geographical sense, is always extremely difficult to determine. You're right that essentially the sources only discuss the actual rivalry itself in passing. I think the issue is, though, that such articles will often go "x and y are long-standing rivals, now here's a bunch of matches they played against each other..." or something along those lines. I understand the SYNTH concern. I'll see if any other participants can find any better sources to add to this discussion. I do think that this is a notable rivalry but proving it is going to be tricky. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to point out that it's up to OP/community to prove that it is not a notable rivalry for the article to be deleted, not the other way around. That's why when there's no consensus the default is to keep in AfD discussions. Seany91 (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see a lot to indicate any real rivalry, and as for the article, I just see which is more head to head. The same information is already in other places.
  WP:NOSTATS. Govvy (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep There is a clear rivalry, and frankly if an unfashionable bunch of provincial second-raters like West Brom-Wolves is going to be our benchmark then there's obviously a great deal more notability here because it's on an exponentially greater scale. However I think an even bigger rivalry (and a better article) would be USWNT v Norway WNT. The Japanese are too nice and don't really do "trash talking", whereas the Norwegians and Americans openly hated each other back in the day. I know SportingFlyer is not usually one of the worst culprits but I'm sorry to say this does look like yet another ignorant and – yes – sexist AfD nomination. The pompous characterisation that American sports "often has difficulty determining what is and is not a rivalry" also jars a bit. You're better than this, SportingFlyer. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a personal attack. I've been going around and trying to save sports articles tagged as not notable. The fact Japan and the U.S. played three important matches against each other does not make this a "rivalry," nor is this a sexist AfD nomination. I saw this in the list, thought, "huh, that's not a rivalry," looked for sources, found only a couple which used the word "rivalry" and none in a traditional sense, and AfD'd. I've also presented an AfD evidencing we typically are too permissive about rivalry articles for American sports - we usually need some sort of evidence of a derby apart from the "the rivals played again," since the word "rivals" gets thrown around willy-nilly in American media. Please retract your statement. SportingFlyer T·C 11:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal attack aside, your argument is basically that you personally disagree with how media sources used the word "rivalry"? Seany91 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is
  WP:SYNTH. It is expressing Wikipedia's opinion that there is a derby between the two sides by stitching together a number of journalistic quotes which use the word "rivalry." For instance, here are the match reports from the most recent meeting between the two sides: [1] [2] [3] [4] where this preview uses "rivals" but contextually in reference to England and Spain, not Japan. You would expect media to cover this like a rivalry if one existed. SportingFlyer T·C 18:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Again, it just seems like you are expressing your personal disagreement of all the existing media reports that have described and covered it as a rivalry. Seany91 (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a disagreement - sources do not describe this as a true derby. The sources you provided clearly don't describe it as a true rivalry, but only mention "rivals" in passing, with the exception of the one study you've presented which doesn't appear to cite any coverage significantly describing this as a rivalry. For another AfD showing we don't keep
  WP:OR articles about two teams who have played big games against each other on rivalry grounds, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/England–Croatia football rivalry. SportingFlyer T·C 11:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep As others have mentioned, multiple sources have described this as a rivalry (and not just in passing), including The US National Team itself DSparrow14 (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire discussion of the "rivalry" in that link is The USA will renew its long-time rivalry with Japan in the final match of the 2020 SheBelieves Cup. That's it. It's a throw-away comment. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep sources like 538 and Bleacher Report are enough, IMO, to say we have documentation that this is a rivalry, and a notable one at that. I'm not seeing a lot about the nature of the rivalry, which makes me wonder if this is the best article to have. But it passes the GNG and I think the article as-is shows there is some potential. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2021 (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.