> I think it's great that Wade is bringing more visibility to lesser-known female scientists, but if we are valuing that, I think we should do so regardless of the subject's identity.
_we_ are not because the initiative and productivity of Jessica Wade isn’t there, not because of notability rules. Yes, some lesser known scientists were deleted but that seems to be a second order challenge. The “valuing” comes from the group or individual effort to make it happen which in turns forces a serious consideration of rule changes.
I think the gendered aspect here comes from Wade's willingness to disregard Wikipedia's rules and Wikipedia's general permissiveness toward her behavior in particular so far, not merely her initiative and productivity.
If it had been allowed, you can pretty much guarantee there would have been an effort to put every scientist on Wikipedia by now. Wikipedians love science and they love the niche, which is why notability thresholds exist in the first place. And they are taken seriously and enforced - that's why there's so much discussion of them on Wikipedia. For whatever reason, these rules matter to the community.
This is not to say Wade did anything wrong. But this is the context.
Hopefully this all spurs a reconsideration of the rules. The current situation is obviously unfair.
_we_ are not because the initiative and productivity of Jessica Wade isn’t there, not because of notability rules. Yes, some lesser known scientists were deleted but that seems to be a second order challenge. The “valuing” comes from the group or individual effort to make it happen which in turns forces a serious consideration of rule changes.