On 11 February 2012 13:05, Carol Moore DC <carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
On 2/11/2012 12:35 PM, Risker wrote:


I do think the inclusion of the word "notable" is important here.  The lists aren't just of women, they're of women who are notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article - which is a pretty low bar, as anyone who's ever tried to get some mess deleted already knows!

Unless it's a bio of someone enough editors want to get rid of for some prejudicial reasons, even if it's got lots of WP:RS.  Then they claim, "oh, it doesn't matter if the person has been quoted or referred to 10 times by the top newspapers in the country, the articles weren't ABOUT the person. So they aren't REALLY notable."

That's why it would be nice to know that Admins are truly neutral and objective, but that's not always true either. ;-(

While I sympathize with your position -  I can think of some articles about notable people that got deleted, too - the role of the administrator in closing deletion discussions remains the assessment and activation of the policy-based consensus during the discussion, not the administrator's personal preference. 

There are also some biographical articles that are so poorly and non-neutrally written that I wish we had a deletion category of "do over": that is, there's enough notability for the subject to have an article, but the article we have is so bad that it's worse than if we had nothing.  One of the areas I've seen that, in particular, is with scientists, and oddly it seems to affect biographies of women scientists disproportionately.  Usually, it has to do with coatracking of irrelevant issues that serve to demonize the subject and question the value of her scientific career.

Nonetheless, this is going off topic...sorry!