All, I started a page about Zoe Wicomb's new novel, October. It is a beautiful novel and had great literary merit.
I received a message is it being considered for deletion. I wrote the editor and gave him reasons not to delete and added another review.
The author has won the inaugural Windham-Campbell Prize. She South African, from Namaqualand. (The editor also wants to delete Fiction from Namaqualand, but it is a region w/o boundaries like the Arctic).
Every Clive Cussler Dirk Pitt adventure novel has its own page.
I am at a loss.
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
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?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Kathleen McCook klmccook@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
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.
It was actually just a notability tag, which I think was being kind in comparison to listing it for deletion. It means he was AGFing that you would be able to add the sourced information showing that it was notable and giving you time to do so. This is the issue--how can a male editor decide a woman's novel is not notable. on what basis?
On the same basis a female editor can decide that about a man’s novel.
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 “).
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
There is, as I’ve posted at the article talk page, a further set of guidelines for books: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29
Daniel Case
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]]
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
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
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
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
OK, I see.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@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@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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
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@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I see.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@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@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
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
