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@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@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@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@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
