Novel by Woman-Deletion - Gendergap

Nathan

22 Jul 22 Jul

7:50 p.m.

Hi Kathleen, The only thing that I can see that is being considered for deletion is the Category:Novels set in Namaqualand (which currently contains only the article for [[October (novel)]]. The article about the novel itself does not seem to be in danger of deletion. How can we help? ~Nathan

Reply

Nathan

8:20 p.m.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Kathleen McCook <klmccook(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I took off the scheduled for deletion notice or maybe it was lack of notability he put up. I couldn't bear. I am fearful he will put it back. This is the issue--how can a male editor decide a woman's novel is not notable. on what basis? On what basis in Clive Cussler notable?

...

>

Hi Kathleen, in answer to your question, the notability guideline is the basis by which both male and female editors should assess articles. You can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

...

Reply

Pete Forsyth

12:11 a.m.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase(a)frontiernet.net> wrote:

...

On what basis in Clive Cussler notable?

That he’s a regular denizen of the bestseller lists in many countries who’s had works adapted into major motion pictures (To be honest, I think we should say that “all published works by authors who have their paperbacks displayed prominently in the racks near the front of bookstores at airports are notable [image: Smile]“).

Well, I don't know. I had never heard of Cussler before today (don't spend a lot of time in airport bookshops), but I did look at a couple of his novels' Wikipedia articles, and they didn't indicate significance any better than the October article. (One of them had a single, ephemeral reference; the other had 7 that seemed pretty thin.) I can see how Kathleen would be frustrated by what surely appears from her perspective to be a double standard. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

Reply

Risker

12:42 a.m.

What Fluff and Pete said. My favourite series of novels, written by a male author about a male protagonist, has articles for every book including the one that never got published before the author died. The majority of them were never reviewed - they're pulp paperback novels - although there were some more in-depth reviews of the series, or occasional books that reflected the reviewer's opinion of the series generally. In fairness, there was a TV series based on the book series, as well as a bunch of Dean Martin movies that were (extremely loosely) based on the books too, so the series *does* have notability - but I'm not convinced every individual book does. It's a classic example of "someone wrote it, there are no extraordinary claims, and it doesn't hurt to exist", I think. I suspect what red-flagged the October (novel) article was the creation of a new category for it, because it drew the attention of a different group of people who might otherwise never have paid attention to this article. They're more wrapped up about categories, generally speaking. Risker/Anne On 22 July 2014 13:14, Katherine Casey <fluffernutter.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Yeah, there are quite a lot of novel articles (and TV episode articles, I suspect) that are mostly there because someone wrote them and no one else felt strongly enough to try to get them removed from the 'pedia (or because they were written in the days of lower notability standards, and got grandfathered in). It's very difficult to draw conclusions to apply to article Y from reading article X, because as often as not the reason Y is as it is is "because no one noticed before this." -Fluff On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase(a)frontiernet.net> wrote:

On what basis in Clive Cussler notable?

That he’s a regular denizen of the bestseller lists in many countries who’s had works adapted into major motion pictures (To be honest, I think we should say that “all published works by authors who have their paperbacks displayed prominently in the racks near the front of bookstores at airports are notable [image: Smile]“).

Well, I don't know. I had never heard of Cussler before today (don't spend a lot of time in airport bookshops), but I did look at a couple of his novels' Wikipedia articles, and they didn't indicate significance any better than the October article. (One of them had a single, ephemeral reference; the other had 7 that seemed pretty thin.) I can see how Kathleen would be frustrated by what surely appears from her perspective to be a double standard. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Reply

Pete Forsyth

1:08 a.m.

Kathleen, I don't think anybody here is trying to say you are wrong on this (or other) points -- but rather, to explore the social dynamics that led to the article you wrote getting tagged, but others that may appear to be similar, not getting tagged. Adding a non-typical category (even if you were "right" to add it) will have the effect of inviting more scrutiny, from different eyes; and it has nothing to do with gender. I think that is the important takeaway here. A related point -- and I'm not saying it's at play in any of the cases we've looked at -- is that in many industries, publishing no less than others, companies (and also fan groups) have gotten very sophisticated about how to evade Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. So a publisher might have gotten very good at creating brief, sub-standard stubs about their authors' works, in ways that are unlikely to attract notice; or a group of fans might have done the same. If that's the case, the appropriate response is to bring those articles up to our basic content standards, or else delete them; not to create other articles modeled on them. This is a good illustration of why arguments like "but other articles exist" don't generally work on Wikipedia. There's actually a good essay on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Kathleen McCook <klmccook(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

The Namaqualand category probably did it. But it is real over 150,000 sq. miles --and is in both South African and Namibia. And October is set there. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

What Fluff and Pete said. My favourite series of novels, written by a male author about a male protagonist, has articles for every book including the one that never got published before the author died. The majority of them were never reviewed - they're pulp paperback novels - although there were some more in-depth reviews of the series, or occasional books that reflected the reviewer's opinion of the series generally. In fairness, there was a TV series based on the book series, as well as a bunch of Dean Martin movies that were (extremely loosely) based on the books too, so the series *does* have notability - but I'm not convinced every individual book does. It's a classic example of "someone wrote it, there are no extraordinary claims, and it doesn't hurt to exist", I think. I suspect what red-flagged the October (novel) article was the creation of a new category for it, because it drew the attention of a different group of people who might otherwise never have paid attention to this article. They're more wrapped up about categories, generally speaking. Risker/Anne On 22 July 2014 13:14, Katherine Casey <fluffernutter.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah, there are quite a lot of novel articles (and TV episode articles, I suspect) that are mostly there because someone wrote them and no one else felt strongly enough to try to get them removed from the 'pedia (or because they were written in the days of lower notability standards, and got grandfathered in). It's very difficult to draw conclusions to apply to article Y from reading article X, because as often as not the reason Y is as it is is "because no one noticed before this." -Fluff On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase(a)frontiernet.net> wrote: > > >> On what basis in Clive Cussler notable? >> > That he’s a regular denizen of the bestseller lists in many countries > who’s had works adapted into major motion pictures (To be honest, I think > we should say that “all published works by authors who have their > paperbacks displayed prominently in the racks near the front of bookstores > at airports are notable [image: Smile]“). > Well, I don't know. I had never heard of Cussler before today (don't spend a lot of time in airport bookshops), but I did look at a couple of his novels' Wikipedia articles, and they didn't indicate significance any better than the October article. (One of them had a single, ephemeral reference; the other had 7 that seemed pretty thin.) I can see how Kathleen would be frustrated by what surely appears from her perspective to be a double standard. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Reply

Sydney Poore

1:47 a.m.

Hello Kathleen, Thank you for bringing your concern to this mailing list. I want you to feel appreciated for your contribution to Wikipedia. Although many long term experienced editors have (in my opinion) correctly addressed your concern that sexism was the primary reason for the notability tag, I think that we need to have a safe space for people to think through issues such as the one that you raised. The way that editors collaborate on Wikipedia can cause people acting in good faith to get really frustrated with each other. It is not so much a gender issue, but one that is related to the way that new and infrequent contributors are oriented into Wikipedia. Being a reputation based community, when new or infrequent editors people are creating new articles or categories, they get extra scrutiny. The scrutiny is uncomfortable for most everyone. Andit is quite possible that women or other types of minorities to the community feel this phenomena more than the dominant group of editors. The solution is to have safe places where people can go with concerns. Plus for the people on this list to make sure that women feel appreciated for bridging the gender gap with their contributions. Warm regards, Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Kathleen McCook <klmccook(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

OK, I see. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Kathleen, I don't think anybody here is trying to say you are wrong on this (or other) points -- but rather, to explore the social dynamics that led to the article you wrote getting tagged, but others that may appear to be similar, not getting tagged. Adding a non-typical category (even if you were "right" to add it) will have the effect of inviting more scrutiny, from different eyes; and it has nothing to do with gender. I think that is the important takeaway here. A related point -- and I'm not saying it's at play in any of the cases we've looked at -- is that in many industries, publishing no less than others, companies (and also fan groups) have gotten very sophisticated about how to evade Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. So a publisher might have gotten very good at creating brief, sub-standard stubs about their authors' works, in ways that are unlikely to attract notice; or a group of fans might have done the same. If that's the case, the appropriate response is to bring those articles up to our basic content standards, or else delete them; not to create other articles modeled on them. This is a good illustration of why arguments like "but other articles exist" don't generally work on Wikipedia. There's actually a good essay on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Kathleen McCook <klmccook(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The Namaqualand category probably did it. But it is real over 150,000 sq. miles --and is in both South African and Namibia. And October is set there. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

What Fluff and Pete said. My favourite series of novels, written by a male author about a male protagonist, has articles for every book including the one that never got published before the author died. The majority of them were never reviewed - they're pulp paperback novels - although there were some more in-depth reviews of the series, or occasional books that reflected the reviewer's opinion of the series generally. In fairness, there was a TV series based on the book series, as well as a bunch of Dean Martin movies that were (extremely loosely) based on the books too, so the series *does* have notability - but I'm not convinced every individual book does. It's a classic example of "someone wrote it, there are no extraordinary claims, and it doesn't hurt to exist", I think. I suspect what red-flagged the October (novel) article was the creation of a new category for it, because it drew the attention of a different group of people who might otherwise never have paid attention to this article. They're more wrapped up about categories, generally speaking. Risker/Anne On 22 July 2014 13:14, Katherine Casey <fluffernutter.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, there are quite a lot of novel articles (and TV episode > articles, I suspect) that are mostly there because someone wrote them and > no one else felt strongly enough to try to get them removed from the 'pedia > (or because they were written in the days of lower notability standards, > and got grandfathered in). It's very difficult to draw conclusions to apply > to article Y from reading article X, because as often as not the reason Y > is as it is is "because no one noticed before this." > > -Fluff > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < >> dancase(a)frontiernet.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> On what basis in Clive Cussler notable? >>>> >>> That he’s a regular denizen of the bestseller lists in many >>> countries who’s had works adapted into major motion pictures (To be honest, >>> I think we should say that “all published works by authors who have their >>> paperbacks displayed prominently in the racks near the front of bookstores >>> at airports are notable [image: Smile]“). >>> >> >> Well, I don't know. I had never heard of Cussler before today (don't >> spend a lot of time in airport bookshops), but I did look at a couple of >> his novels' Wikipedia articles, and they didn't indicate significance any >> better than the October article. (One of them had a single, ephemeral >> reference; the other had 7 that seemed pretty thin.) >> >> I can see how Kathleen would be frustrated by what surely appears >> from her perspective to be a double standard. >> >> Pete >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Reply