I think it’s “new-ness” bias and a “related content bias” and a “popularity bias” rather than primarily a gender bias. There’s loads of new work published all the time. Lots of it will not merit a Wikipedia article, just as many novels by the male contemporaries of Clive Cussler don’t get Wikipedia articles either. Novels that have been around for years will have had lots of opportunity for 3rd parties to talk about them to establish notability. New novels have a harder job to establish notability because they have been around for a shorter period of time for others to write about them. At the time the notability tag was added to the October article, there wasn’t a whole lot of content in the article. There was no mention of any award. There were 2 cited sources, one of which was an interview with the author. The publisher of October (The New Press) doesn’t have a Wikipedia article. And the only link to the October article is from the Zoe Wicomb article which probably deserves a notability tag itself (based on the citations, not the author’s evident merits). The other Zoe Wicomb novels don’t have a Wikipedia article either (they are visibly red-linked on the Zoe Wicomb article) and two of their publishers (Kwela and Umuzi) don’t have Wikipedia articles. One work was published by Virago Press which does have a Wikipedia article though. If you look at it from the point of view of someone who has never heard of Zoe Wicomb, it seems a notability tag for the October article was not unreasonable; the evidence of notability of both the author and her works and her publishers (as currently shown on Wikipedia) looks pretty flimsy. I think if the Zoe Wicomb article was better fleshed-out and there were articles about her other novels and her publishers, the notability of her most recent novel would be more self-evident. I suspect this in itself a form of bias; I’ll call it “related content bias”. That is, the presence of “related content” on Wikipedia provides its own evidence of notability. Personally I often check the “What links here” as a notability test – if lots of other articles have previously had red-links to this topic, it suggests that an article on this topic is indeed needed (noting that “needed” is not necessarily the same as “notable” but personally I think it’s a good reason for any article’s existence). I think comparisons with Clive Cussler are inappropriate. Whatever anyone might think about his works (I am not a fan myself), it’s hard to deny that he’s an extremely popular author. Wikipedia readers would expect to find Wikipedia articles about him and his works. An equally popular (probably more popular) female author is J. K. Rowling; I note her very recent book (under the Robert Galbraith pseudonym) “The Silkworm” got a Wikipedia article very quickly (without a lot of citations but with “obvious notability” – we’ve all heard of J K Rowling). Zoe Wicomb isn’t in the same league for “obvious notability” as Cussler and Rowling. I’ve never heard of Zoe Wicomb until this thread but, to make it a fair test, I looked in my local public library current collection: 384,380 works in total, 130 works by Clive Cussler, 105 for J K Rowling, none whatsoever for Zoe Wicomb (they did have “You can’t get lost in Cape Town” previously, I guess it has since been “de-acquisitioned”). (The count of work here include alternate formats: book/e-book/audio-book but not physical copies, if anyone is wondering). So I suspect the different treatment of Clive Cussler and Zoe Wicomb on Wikipedia may reflect a “popularity bias” too. I am not denying that we have gender bias issues on Wikipedia but I think in this particular case I think there are definitely a number of other considerations in play. Kerry _____ From: gendergap-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Kathleen McCook Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2014 11:34 PM To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: [Gendergap] Zoë Wicomb or Clive Cussler? Thank you. But I do not believe these Guidelines are used fairly when it comes to author's gender. Again..why would every novel by Clive Cussler get its own page but there be a notability query about one by Zoë Wicomb?? This seems to me pure gender bias. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Kathleen McCook <klmccook(a)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 _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap