Deletion of Women's studies

Comment: per .  It is trivial to demonstrate that many, probably most, Western universities offer a section of courses in women's studies, and that many have departments devoted to teaching it.  Obviously, as a topic it is worthy of an encyclopedia article.  Finally, despite any issues that the nominator or other people might have with the current text, it isn't broken enough to require deletion. AfD is not for content disputes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: develop and expand such that #Undue weight is not violated. Please use the appropriate avenues for |dispute resolution in the future
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:DR)

Comment: I have no idea why this reasonably good short article on a clearly notable topic should be deleted, and I think the nominator should read Wikipedia:Deletion policy more carefully. There have been occasional problems with (anonymous) POV-pushing, though even most of the text is NPOV (the remaining problem being one of |undue weight, and there was an NPOV tag on it until http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women%27s_studies&diff=106076718&oldid=106073567 the nominator removed it).  This article is basically solid, relatively well-sourced, and if anything, is primarily in need of expansion.  The nomination makes no sense to me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)