I wrote, "The article as written contains no assertions, plausible or otherwise, of notability. It reeks with redlinks and self-published "sources". AS WRITTEN. I would have been equally dismissive of a guy name Ron who claimed to be part of a Odinic priesthood; no more and no less.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
With Ruth having published articles in peer reviewed journals multiple times that have been directly responded to by dozens of times, having her work and ideas forming a significant part of a book by KS Coleman that directly talks about Ruth's life experences, mentions her full name 20+ times as both a source of information and about life details related to Ruth, having some details of her life included in both a Thomsan-Gale encyclopedia regarding LGBT topcs and a separate encyclopedia about Wiccan and Neopagan traditions, as well as many other articles, including book reviews, there's no question that she passes both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. These cites are not in the article but it took me approximately 115 second (I timed it) to find them without having journal access configured. I seriously doubt the article would've challenged if it were about a dude.
If you're going to tag something as non-notable, you should probably take two minutes before doing so.
Kevin Gorman
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Michael J. Lowrey orangemike@gmail.com wrote:
The book may be notable while the author is not. It sounds like it's a rehash of Joanna Russ' classic HOW TO SUPPRESS WOMEN'S WRITING.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Carol Moore dc < carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
Dang, I should have found some refs first. See how out of practice I am! I was sure I'd read it already was discussed by Time or something.
I'm sure that the bio will be quickly deleted, even after the book published and reviewed, while thousands of male bios with no refs survive. Sigh...
On 6/26/2016 9:45 PM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote:
The article as written contains no assertions, plausible or otherwise, of notability. It reeks with redlinks and self-published "sources".
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
It looks like her bio is being challenged just as the book she edited is starting to get reliable source attention. In case anyone wants to work on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Barrett The book is "Female Erasure: What You Need To Know About Gender Politics’, War On Woman, the Female Sex, and Human Rights" _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.orgTo manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap-- Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes." -- Desiderius Erasmus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes." -- Desiderius Erasmus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap