Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Pharos]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:59 PM, David Goodman  wrote:
> The argument for Savage was that an exception should be made for
> bibliographies, discographies, and so forth, where we would do better
> to provide complete  coverage since it quite easy to do &something
> which can well be crowd-sourced,  fits in with our basic mission, & is
> appropriate  to do in conjunction with articles rather than as some
> sort of separate database. I opposed the Savage material as a separate
> article,& would still oppose it today,  but I wouldn't now oppose
> having the material: I think the best way to do this is with subpages.

As an aside, I have played with classifying some of our non-standard
article types (without judging them!) here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encyclopedic_genre

Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)

> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Thomas Morton
>  wrote:
 Been there.  Done that.  It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin
 Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people,  (Though I guess
 you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young
 girls) there was an attempt to merge
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it
 clear the reason is "I don't like this."  The article had about 100 sources
 around the time the article was nominated for merge.  Lady Gaga, the most
 followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people
 ask why the article isn't deleted.  See
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:_Is_this_page_really_relevant.3F
 . I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should 
 be
 generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither article
 currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant articles.

 Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape
 greater understanding around issues.  Thus, a battle for what should and
 should not be there.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted
>>> to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic"
>>> articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed
>>> information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a
>>> Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.
>>>
>>> One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources
>>> cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of
>>> covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably
>>> with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject
>>> or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might
>>> apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter
>>> usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter
>>> account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about
>>> his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that
>>> service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than
>>> seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the
>>> fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort
>>> normal practice on a wiki.
>>
>>
>> One of the problems I personally have with those articles is that it
>> stretches to definition of Wikipedia as a summary resource. If we aim to be
>> exhaustive, in the way those articles represent, where does it end?
>>
>> As Nathan says; this is a prime example of POV pushing/distortion.
>>
>> If I wrote a lengthy article about the details of messages Dudley Clarke
>> sent back and forth to John Bevan during World War II (and article I could
>> quite easily source) the community would, quite rightly, delete it.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[David Goodman]

The argument for Savage was that an exception should be made for
bibliographies, discographies, and so forth, where we would do better
to provide complete  coverage since it quite easy to do &something
which can well be crowd-sourced,  fits in with our basic mission, & is
appropriate  to do in conjunction with articles rather than as some
sort of separate database. I opposed the Savage material as a separate
article,& would still oppose it today,  but I wouldn't now oppose
having the material: I think the best way to do this is with subpages.


On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Thomas Morton
 wrote:
>>> Been there.  Done that.  It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin
>>> Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people,  (Though I guess
>>> you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young
>>> girls) there was an attempt to merge
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it
>>> clear the reason is "I don't like this."  The article had about 100 sources
>>> around the time the article was nominated for merge.  Lady Gaga, the most
>>> followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people
>>> ask why the article isn't deleted.  See
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:_Is_this_page_really_relevant.3F
>>> . I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should be
>>> generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither article
>>> currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant articles.
>>>
>>> Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape
>>> greater understanding around issues.  Thus, a battle for what should and
>>> should not be there.
>>
>>
>> Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted
>> to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic"
>> articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed
>> information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a
>> Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.
>>
>> One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources
>> cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of
>> covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably
>> with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject
>> or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might
>> apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter
>> usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter
>> account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about
>> his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that
>> service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than
>> seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the
>> fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort
>> normal practice on a wiki.
>
>
> One of the problems I personally have with those articles is that it
> stretches to definition of Wikipedia as a summary resource. If we aim to be
> exhaustive, in the way those articles represent, where does it end?
>
> As Nathan says; this is a prime example of POV pushing/distortion.
>
> If I wrote a lengthy article about the details of messages Dudley Clarke
> sent back and forth to John Bevan during World War II (and article I could
> quite easily source) the community would, quite rightly, delete it.
>
> Tom
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>



-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Thomas Morton]

>
> Been there.  Done that.  It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin
>> Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people,  (Though I guess
>> you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young
>> girls) there was an attempt to merge
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making
>> it clear the reason is "I don't like this."  The article had about 100
>> sources around the time the article was nominated for merge.  Lady Gaga,
>> the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had
>> other people ask why the article isn't deleted.  See
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:_Is_this_page_really_relevant.3F.
>>  I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should
>> be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither
>> article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant
>> articles.
>>
>> Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape
>> greater understanding around issues.  Thus, a battle for what should and
>> should not be there.
>>
>
> Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted
> to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic"
> articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed
> information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a
> Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.
>
> One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources
> cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of
> covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably
> with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject
> or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might
> apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter
> usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter
> account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about
> his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that
> service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than
> seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the
> fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort
> normal practice on a wiki.
>

One of the problems I personally have with those articles is that it
stretches to definition of Wikipedia as a summary resource. If we aim to be
exhaustive, in the way those articles represent, where does it end?

As Nathan says; this is a prime example of POV pushing/distortion.

If I wrote a lengthy article about the details of messages Dudley Clarke
sent back and forth to John Bevan during World War II (and article I could
quite easily source) the community would, quite rightly, delete it.

Tom
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[John Vandenberg]

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
> On 5/15/12 6:35 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
>
>> From a gender gap perspective of bringing in new female contributors,  I
>> would argue that Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are much more important than
>> Imlay because Gaga and Bieber are of interest to and more accessible to a
>> greater audience than Imlay's article is. I would further argue that it is a
>> bit elitist to dismiss the importance of improving such articles like Bieber
>> and issues around such articles like Bieber while focusing on narrowly
>> scoped articles that are of limited interest and limited ability to attract
>> a large female audience. We might have issues of educational privilege and
>> class amongst participants here that mean we do not adequately address those
>> outside our own backgrounds.
>
>
> Hi everyone. I don't think anyone is arguing the importance of Justin Bieber
> and Lady Gaga and the attraction that primarily young women have towards
> them. Those articles are also protected, meaning that young women who are
> new to editing most likely wouldn't be able to edit them. I also could argue
> that Lady Gaga could be used to also attract young gay boys into editing
> too. :D  (And Gaga is a good article, needing little improvement it seems!)
>
> I believe it's the Twitter account focus that people are a bit confused by.
> I have a feeling a lot of young women aren't going to be interested in
> editing articles about the Twitter habits of their favorite celebrities, but
> more so the life story of those people. Alas, I don't have any specific
> research to back that theory though. I just am saying it from my own
> experience as being having my own celebrity obsessions when I was a young
> kid. I wouldn't quite go as far to say we have systemtic bias towards Bieber
> or Gaga content, either. I think we all struggle with trying to maintain
> articles about lesser known figures - whether scientists or sports figures.
>
> But, in the spirit of "can o' worms" perhaps Twitter articles for
> celebrities are a slippery slope. I have a feeling that if we get Bieber
> Twitter then we get a Bieber's hair article too =)  (technically his hair is
> notable.)

We're way offtopic, but the original problem is solved so ...

Here is an example where I thought a separate article was uncalled for

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Savage_bibliography

The AFD is all but over, and I am shocked that so many people believe
that this author's collections works and media appearances are
separately notable.  IMO Bieber's twitter account and Bieber's hair
are both more distinctly notable than Savage's collection of works.
people talk about Bieber's twitter account and Bieber's hair all the
time; they do not regularly talk about Savage's works as a collective.
 Obviously, mileages vary greatly.

--
John Vandenberg

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Sarah Stierch]

On 5/15/12 6:35 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
From a gender gap perspective of bringing in new female contributors, 
 I would argue that Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are much more 
important than Imlay because Gaga and Bieber are of interest to and 
more accessible to a greater audience than Imlay's article is. I would 
further argue that it is a bit elitist to dismiss the importance of 
improving such articles like Bieber and issues around such articles 
like Bieber while focusing on narrowly scoped articles that are of 
limited interest and limited ability to attract a large female 
audience. We might have issues of educational privilege and class 
amongst participants here that mean we do not adequately address those 
outside our own backgrounds.




Hi everyone. I don't think anyone is arguing the importance of Justin 
Bieber and Lady Gaga and the attraction that primarily young women have 
towards them. Those articles are also protected, meaning that young 
women who are new to editing most likely wouldn't be able to edit them. 
I also could argue that Lady Gaga could be used to also attract young 
gay boys into editing too. :D  (And Gaga is a good article, needing 
little improvement it seems!)


I believe it's the Twitter account focus that people are a bit confused 
by. I have a feeling a lot of young women aren't going to be interested 
in editing articles about the Twitter habits of their favorite 
celebrities, but more so the life story of those people. Alas, I don't 
have any specific research to back that theory though. I just am saying 
it from my own experience as being having my own celebrity obsessions 
when I was a young kid. I wouldn't quite go as far to say we have 
systemtic bias towards Bieber or Gaga content, either. I think we all 
struggle with trying to maintain articles about lesser known figures - 
whether scientists or sports figures.


But, in the spirit of "can o' worms" perhaps Twitter articles for 
celebrities are a slippery slope. I have a feeling that if we get Bieber 
Twitter then we get a Bieber's hair article too =)  (technically his 
hair is notable.)


-Sarah



On Wednesday, May 16, 2012, Lady of Shalott wrote:

I have to say that I think a topic such as Imlay, with literally
centuries of scholarship is not really comparable to the recentism
that is an article on a Twitter account, whether Bieber's or Gaga's.

LadyofShalott/ Aleta Turner

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan > wrote:



On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Laura Hale
> wrote:


Been there.  Done that.  It isn't only women's topics.
Because Justin Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked
by some people,  (Though I guess you could argue this
example relates to a topic of interest to many young
girls) there was an attempt to merge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal
making it clear the reason is "I don't like this."  The
article had about 100 sources around the time the article
was nominated for merge.  Lady Gaga, the most followed
person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had
other people ask why the article isn't deleted.  See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:_Is_this_page_really_relevant.3F
. I have another topic I wrote on where the regional
women's stuff should be generic to all women playing the
sport or to the region. If neither article currently
exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant
articles.

Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the
potential to shape greater understanding around issues. 
Thus, a battle for what should and should not be there.



Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long
articles devoted to a Twitter account. What is and isn't
broken out from "main topic" articles is often controversial,
whether criticism sections or detailed information on
specifically consequential periods, but an article on a
Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.

One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that
the sources cited included information about her only
incidentally in the course of covering other people, as
opposed to being primarily about her (presumably with the
exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the
subject or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's
an argument that might apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter."
The articles discussing his Twitter usage are really about
Justin Bieber and his behavior, 

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Laura Hale]

>From a gender gap perspective of bringing in new female contributors,  I
would argue that Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are much more important than
Imlay because Gaga and Bieber are of interest to and more accessible to a
greater audience than Imlay's article is. I would further argue that it is
a bit elitist to dismiss the importance of improving such articles like
Bieber and issues around such articles like Bieber while focusing on
narrowly scoped articles that are of limited interest and limited ability
to attract a large female audience. We might have issues of educational
privilege and class amongst participants here that mean we do not
adequately address those outside our own backgrounds.

On Wednesday, May 16, 2012, Lady of Shalott wrote:

> I have to say that I think a topic such as Imlay, with literally centuries
> of scholarship is not really comparable to the recentism that is an article
> on a Twitter account, whether Bieber's or Gaga's.
>
> LadyofShalott/ Aleta Turner
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan  'cvml', 'nawr...@gmail.com');>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Laura Hale 
>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Been there.  Done that.  It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin
>>> Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people,  (Though I guess
>>> you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young
>>> girls) there was an attempt to merge
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making
>>> it clear the reason is "I don't like this."  The article had about 100
>>> sources around the time the article was nominated for merge.  Lady Gaga,
>>> the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had
>>> other people ask why the article isn't deleted.  See
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:_Is_this_page_really_relevant.3F.
>>>  I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should
>>> be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither
>>> article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant
>>> articles.
>>>
>>> Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape
>>> greater understanding around issues.  Thus, a battle for what should and
>>> should not be there.
>>>
>>
>> Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles
>> devoted to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main
>> topic" articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or
>> detailed information on specifically consequential periods, but an article
>> on a Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.
>>
>> One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the
>> sources cited included information about her only incidentally in the
>> course of covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her
>> (presumably with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about
>> the subject or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an
>> argument that might apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles
>> discussing his Twitter usage are really about Justin Bieber and his
>> behavior, not his Twitter account. See for example[1], a short mention in
>> Ashton Kutcher's bio about his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most
>> prominent users of that service in its history, but there is no article
>> devoted to it. Rather than seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I
>> don't like it," I think the fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a
>> gigantic fanbase to distort normal practice on a wiki.
>>
>>
>> ~Nathan
>>
>> [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Kutcher#Twitter_presence
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > 'Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org');>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "Sometimes a tree is actually a deer with twelve horns, standing on a
> hillock that houses a bird's nest."
>
> from _The Night Life of Trees_, by Bhajju Shyam, Durga Bai, and Ram Singh
> Urveti, Tara Publishing, 2006
>
>

-- 
mobile: 0412183663
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Lady of Shalott]

I have to say that I think a topic such as Imlay, with literally centuries
of scholarship is not really comparable to the recentism that is an article
on a Twitter account, whether Bieber's or Gaga's.

LadyofShalott/ Aleta Turner

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Laura Hale  wrote:
>
>>
>> Been there.  Done that.  It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin
>> Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people,  (Though I guess
>> you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young
>> girls) there was an attempt to merge
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making
>> it clear the reason is "I don't like this."  The article had about 100
>> sources around the time the article was nominated for merge.  Lady Gaga,
>> the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had
>> other people ask why the article isn't deleted.  See
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:_Is_this_page_really_relevant.3F.
>>  I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should
>> be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither
>> article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant
>> articles.
>>
>> Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape
>> greater understanding around issues.  Thus, a battle for what should and
>> should not be there.
>>
>
> Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted
> to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic"
> articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed
> information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a
> Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.
>
> One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources
> cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of
> covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably
> with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject
> or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might
> apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter
> usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter
> account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about
> his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that
> service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than
> seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the
> fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort
> normal practice on a wiki.
>
>
> ~Nathan
>
> [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Kutcher#Twitter_presence
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>


-- 
"Sometimes a tree is actually a deer with twelve horns, standing on a
hillock that houses a bird's nest."

from _The Night Life of Trees_, by Bhajju Shyam, Durga Bai, and Ram Singh
Urveti, Tara Publishing, 2006
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Nathan]

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Laura Hale  wrote:

>
> Been there.  Done that.  It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin
> Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people,  (Though I guess
> you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young
> girls) there was an attempt to merge
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it
> clear the reason is "I don't like this."  The article had about 100 sources
> around the time the article was nominated for merge.  Lady Gaga, the most
> followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people
> ask why the article isn't deleted.  See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:_Is_this_page_really_relevant.3F.
>  I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should
> be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither
> article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant
> articles.
>
> Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape
> greater understanding around issues.  Thus, a battle for what should and
> should not be there.
>

Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted
to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic"
articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed
information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a
Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.

One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources
cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of
covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably
with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject
or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might
apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter
usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter
account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about
his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that
service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than
seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the
fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort
normal practice on a wiki.


~Nathan

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Kutcher#Twitter_presence
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Laura Hale]

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:

>
> This happened to another article I contributed to that reached FA status,
> as well:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_York_State_Route_32/Archive_1#Question
>
>  It really came down to “yes, it’s notable, but it *shouldn’t* be”.
>
>
Been there.  Done that.  It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin
Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people,  (Though I guess
you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young
girls) there was an attempt to merge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it
clear the reason is "I don't like this."  The article had about 100 sources
around the time the article was nominated for merge.  Lady Gaga, the most
followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people
ask why the article isn't deleted.  See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:_Is_this_page_really_relevant.3F.
I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff
should
be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither
article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant
articles.

Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape
greater understanding around issues.  Thus, a battle for what should and
should not be there.

-- 
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

>It was a "tactical" deletion request. I find that to be a pretty silly 
>maneuver, personally, particularly as the nominators never do a very good job 
>>as devil's advocate. If jbmurray didn't think the article should be deleted, 
>he should not have wasted his own time and that of other volunteers >by 
>nominating it. 

I consider this to be yet another example that would justify an essay I’ve 
always thought of writing, “The real world is not Wikipedia”, a thought first 
kicked off by the nomination for this AfD: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Streisand_effect_%282nd_nomination%29.
 in which the nominator (who left the project a long time ago) decided 
Wikipedia policy should apply to the documents we accept as reliable sources 
(as opposed to the IP on the talk page, who seems to have felt the article 
should have gone beyond the notability policy and tried to explain why scholars 
would have found Ms. Imlay notable enough to write about.
This happened to another article I contributed to that reached FA status, as 
well: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_York_State_Route_32/Archive_1#Question
It really came down to “yes, it’s notable, but it shouldn’t be”.
Daniel Case___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Ryan Kaldari]

Too bad she wasn't nominated for any porn awards, then she would be 
clearly notable.[1] As it stands, she only has 1 biography and a couple 
hundred years of scholarly commentary, so it seems like a borderline 
case to me.


1. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Pornographic_actors_and_models


Ryan Kaldari


On 5/15/12 8:50 AM, Christine Meyer wrote:

I thought that I'd bring an AfD discussion to the attention of this
list: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fanny_Imlay#Fanny_Imlay

It really is ridiculous that this discussion is even happening, and is
yet another example of the gender bias on en:Wikipedia.  I've followed
the discussion on the article's talk page, and it goes into absurdity.
  I wouldn't say it there, but how in the world is Imlay not notable
but one of the articles I've been working on lately, [[Anthony
Field]], is?  (I think that Field is notable, but it proves my point,
I think.)  I bring it to your attention because the article needs our
support.

Christine
User:Figureskatingfan

___
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

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Carol Moore DC]

On 5/15/2012 12:47 PM, Nathan wrote:
It was a "tactical" deletion request. I find that to be a pretty silly 
maneuver, personally, particularly as the nominators never do a very 
good job as devil's advocate. If jbmurray didn't think the article 
should be deleted, he should not have wasted his own time and that of 
other volunteers by nominating it.



I've called for speedily archiving the whole silly incident from the 
article talk page. Geez.


CM
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Nathan]

It was a "tactical" deletion request. I find that to be a pretty silly
maneuver, personally, particularly as the nominators never do a very good
job as devil's advocate. If jbmurray didn't think the article should be
deleted, he should not have wasted his own time and that of other
volunteers by nominating it.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Sarah Stierch]

On 5/15/12 11:50 AM, Christine Meyer wrote:

I thought that I'd bring an AfD discussion to the attention of this
list: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fanny_Imlay#Fanny_Imlay

It really is ridiculous that this discussion is even happening, and is
yet another example of the gender bias on en:Wikipedia.  I've followed
the discussion on the article's talk page, and it goes into absurdity.
  I wouldn't say it there, but how in the world is Imlay not notable
but one of the articles I've been working on lately, [[Anthony
Field]], is?  (I think that Field is notable, but it proves my point,
I think.)  I bring it to your attention because the article needs our
support.


Thanks Christine. The article looks like it was a snow keep which is 
great. I am pretty shocked it was also nominated for deletion. If an 
article like this - a high quality featured article about a notable 
historical figure - is nominated for deletion, then about half of 
Wikipedia should be nominated for deletion because it's "boring" or 
because the person is so obscure only scholarly folks tend to know who 
the figure is.


Glad it's safe now :)

It's also all the more reason for folks to monitor the AfD queue: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion


-Sarah


--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/*
>>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today 
<<
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Christine Meyer]

I thought that I'd bring an AfD discussion to the attention of this
list: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fanny_Imlay#Fanny_Imlay

It really is ridiculous that this discussion is even happening, and is
yet another example of the gender bias on en:Wikipedia.  I've followed
the discussion on the article's talk page, and it goes into absurdity.
 I wouldn't say it there, but how in the world is Imlay not notable
but one of the articles I've been working on lately, [[Anthony
Field]], is?  (I think that Field is notable, but it proves my point,
I think.)  I bring it to your attention because the article needs our
support.

Christine
User:Figureskatingfan

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap