Talk:Women's cue sports in Australia

Notability

I removed the notability tag as several newspaper articles about the topic are cited in the article. --LauraHale (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Trivial (and generations-obsolete!) coverage doesn't establish notability. Nor does the mere existence of women's division competition in some field (it exists, largely by female demand not male segregation, for basically every single competitive endeavor there is). The General notability guideline is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis added). "Gee whiz, some women are actually doing sports!" remarks in newspapers dating to a sexist era are not significant coverage (they may however be very good material for an article on sexism in sports, which is surely overdue). I don't really care about the notability tag, though. If it doesn't look like an actual encyclopedia article in a month or so, I or someone else will just AFD it and the rest of these that are based on a <1% national interest level, probably for merge into broader articles. They're obviously not notable stand-alone topics. We cannot have a zillion "women's X" side topics for every single topic that exists; it would be an unmaintainable mess. (same goes for ethnicity and other traits). There has to be some cultural, social, political context that makes a gender- or other trait-based article encyclopedically meaningful instead of a soapbox, or it'll get merged. The fact that much more obvious and less parochial articles on sportswomen don't exist yet (e.g. Women in auto racing or anything similar, to serve as the badly needed main article for Category:Female racing drivers‎) is a strong hint. Another is WP:OVERCAT. While it was written for WP:CFD, the basic logic in it about triple intersections like "demographic" + "activity" + "nation" applies to articles, and is why you won't find many articles like this. Most of the articles that you created based on that old survey have no equivalents for other countries, not even the UK and US (the two countries with the highest topical article counts for almost all topics). Where they do, you tend to find really obvious notability, like well-developed national and international athletic programs, etc., not passing-fancy mention in old newspapers. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I observe three and half years later that these articles have barely or not all improved.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)