Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of women art historians

4039:

of us a particular privileged position in society, and assumes that our opinions and actions are driven by this position. I would find this offensive even if I had such a privileged position, as it takes a fundamentally dehumanising view of individuals and ascribes consistent malice to all members of a given class, rather than considering each person as separate and equally worthy of respect. This alone makes it very hard to maintain good faith in the words and actions of this disruptive editor. However, I find this editor's comments personally upsetting on a deeper level. I myself am not one of society's privileged few, but not once has this editor bothered to address this either privately or in this debate; indeed, they haven't even bothered to check my status. I have plenty of experience of being de-privileged by white, anglo-saxon, heterosexual, protestant, able-bodied, able-minded, monogamously-married, middle-aged, traditionally-educated cis males, but it is rare to be de-privileged by someone who ought, if their own claims of personal identity are to be taken at face value, to be on my side. Instead, I am swept up in the assumption of white masculinity, and suffer the blanketing scorn of a relative newcomer here, simply because I'm trying to do the best I can as an editor of Knowledge. I find it remarkably unpleasant to have to undergo such name-calling, combined with repeated assertions about how we ought to do things, what kinds of beliefs we should hold, and what kinds of things Knowledge should cover, all delivered from a position that is itself entirely that of the privileged academic. I find this hectoring, disruptive, and ultimately hypocritical. It is not constructive to claim that Knowledge is adopting one privileged position when the alternative being offered is simply that of current academic discourse, which is another equally privileged position in our society. It is particularly regrettable that despite being asked several times for a moderation of tone, one editor in particular has continued to be excessively rude, disruptive, and unable to work within the constraints of fair and rational debate. I hope this does not affect the outcome of this deletion debate, but I also hope we can address the problem of an editor who consistently does not assume the good faith of other contributors to this project, and instead appears to follow requests for moderation with more extreme comments. Thank you.

1083:- (apologies up front-this was not typed on my computer. Time felt of the essence. Forgive my quickness on a small screen. TY.) The basis given for this entire debate feels very much like the "Some Men/Not All Men" / men deserve equal rights arguments personified. To suggest that a page such as this should necessitate a list of all art historians as well as male art historians is reductive. Like it or not ( I don't; yet as an educator and academic scholar, very much not an art historian, I would be very remiss to ignore this) our gender still has significant implications for what we are permitted to do, what we are actually able to do, and what may be seen as accomplished once we're finished. This field-like nearly every professional field within the the academies (or simply, nearly every professional field)-is male dominated, and as such, the work that is done, that is granted approval to progress, and that is seen by wider audiences, does so only with male approval. In no way am I suggesting that every male in this field wields tyrannical Man control (don't put further "some men" arguments into this); as fields have moved forward throughout the years, many have progressed and have allowed influences to diffuse. And still many have not. That's the issue here: And still many have not. 435:, a publisher of original research. And there are plenty of places in this world that are designed for publishing original research. I'm not sure why it upsets you so that someone is pointing out that this is not one of those places. It's like walking into a Pizza Hut and getting upset that they won't sell you a hamburger when there are three burger joints on the block. Not only that, there are tools for building your own burger shop; you seem to have a lot of enthusiasm for a far deeper chronicling of academia then fits into Knowledge guidelines, and that might make for a great wiki all its own - and the same software that Knowledge runs on is available for free for you to use, and there are even sites that already have that or similar software installed and will allow you to set up a wiki where you and you alone set up the guidelines for inclusion. Or you might write an article on the topic - I don't know if art history journals would also be interested in such an aspect on the history of art history instead of just the history of art, but I would suspect that between those journals, journals of feminist studies, and even popular magazines such as 1007:

there is not a list of women art historians published elsewhere, let's take a moment to reflect upon why that is the case, and ask ourselves if this gender problem has anything to do with it... If we publish a list of women art historians elsewhere, will it make this list 'encyclopedic'? Any less encyclopedic than, as someone pointed out, a list of football players? Aren't faculty department webpages enough? It appears that the (male) editors here are outwardly stifling the voices of women contributors, a problem well-documented in the Knowledge community. A list of professional art historians is not "original research" and has an equal significance as "Women Artists." And to get to the point before the Wiki-bros do (btw --- I am a man myself) let's just acknowledge, for the record, that women artists don't always make art about being a women, and thus gender isn't "directly related to the nature of their career." Should we delete that thread too? Please hold back the snarky, privileged tone while we have this discussion. --

4057:! "white, anglo-saxon, heterosexual, protestant, able-bodied, able-minded, monogamously-married, middle-aged, traditionally-educated cis males": I resemble that remark! I checked at least six of those boxes. As for the meat of your comment, I am an administrator here, so check it, I'm super-privileged, wielding a phallus as well (read your Lacan, people: a phallus is not a penis). I don't want to go into too much detail, since this discussion is already too long and will hopefully be closed soon, but I'm somewhat loath to act administratively. I did leave a note, a kind of warning, if you will: no one appreciates being called "motherfucker" (it's kind of a sexist term as well), and I for one do not appreciate, like you, being lumped in with some group. Having said that, Joojay below points out some redeeming factors, and those are probably why I haven't acted more forcefully. So let's try and cover this with the "mantel der liefde", as the Dutch would say. Thanks, 739:

It is because my discipline is so lame and underdeveloped that it has not even bothered with this question. And that is why we need this list! TO help it grow and change, to help it develop some badly needed self-reflexivity. You know, I don't think there is even one book on women art historians. Which is super weird when you think about it because when artists depict personifications of the arts, it is rarely a male. Women have always had a central, but unacknowledged role in the protection and advancement of the arts. And yet, like most women's work, it is regularly overlooked, ignored, dismissed, or belittled. Much like this list is being dismissed and belittled. You have a list of women writers, and artists, how come you cannot have a list of women art historians? Explain that. This is no different. I don't want a separate Knowledge for it because this list belongs here. I am happy to fix the notes, and I want to make it a searchable spreadsheet.

1484:. One of the things that I regularly do on Knowledge is check the list of Wikipedians who have pending requests for help, so I saw your request, and posted a reply to it. Subsequently, you posted two more request for help on the same page, and I saw one of those two, and responded to it. Having twice offered help to the same editor, I later checked back, to see how that editor was getting on, and saw that you had posted a message addressed to me on the same page, in which you asked me to give further information which I answered. Seeing an editor who had not only several times asked for help, but had also specifically asked me for information, perhaps it would not be unreasonable if I decided at this point to check up again, to see if you needed more help. You posted another request for help to the same page, which I saw, and to which I responded. However, that was not all. One of the administrative tasks that I sometimes do is assessing requests at 938:'s criteria of Information, Navigation, and Development. Information, because if expanded to be searchable by date and location, it would inform readers about the historical development and geographical dispersal of women working in art history; in particular, it would provide this information which categorization alone would not de. Navigation, because it is a natural place for those looking for articles on female art historians and feminist art history to find relevant articles. And Development, because this list provides a good way of keeping track of whether Knowledge is doing a good job of covering women in art history. Contrary to the nominators claim that female art historians is not a topic with significant coverage, the gender of art historians is in fact a widely discussed topic in feminist art history; a simple Google search, for instance, turned up this collection of relevant resources: 2663:: the goal is worthy, but this is the wrong means. With a little bit more effort than what went into this particular disaster, an editor could use the Dictionary Of Art Historians to create dozens or more articles on women that are art historians. That's another strange part of this list, by the way: it's a list of art historians, many are indicated to have "art historian" as a profession (rather superfluous, it would seem, in a list of art historians), but even more surprising, many have no profession at all... Anyway, to redress the (indeed existing) imbalance of coverage that currently favors male academics, it is better to create good biographies of women than listcruft like this. Like Drmies, I'd be willing to change my !vote if this article would be pruned along the lines that he indicates. -- 2469:

underrepresentation of female scholars (for instance), let me say that Knowledge is not some insulated male-only bubble. We reflect a. the make-up and prejudices of our larger societies and b. what reliable sources have to say. Now, all you feminists (and I include myself), you can change what's decided by a. by joining and working here, changing the system from within. Per b., that often means digging deeper ("Hark ye yet again,--the little lower layer"), and for the academic scholars, that means publishing (outside of Knowledge), including publishing on those women, on university tenure guidelines, on male-dominated systems, on the history of women scholarship--and when you do that, you make it easy for Knowledge writers to include that material. But the first challenge for those interested is to

2513:- I'm going to very much support what Drmies has to say regarding encouraging the creation of individual articles on female art historians. I have not fully evaluated the Dictionary Of Art Historians as a source, but it looks to me like it's more of a (legitimate) Who's Who than a Who's Everybody, and if it is a reliable source could make a fine foundational source for a couple hundred article on individual female art historians, and to the degree that a page on Knowledge provides visibility, create more visibility for female art historians. And getting an article on female art historians into some respectable source would both serve the activist desire in that direction and create more justification for a Knowledge article on female art historians. -- 1276:. I am still waiting to have the article undeleted (it was so great!) Read it for yourself and decide. Otherwise, there are not "1000s" of women art historians in the US, the fact of the matter is that we know that there are 3500 registered art historians all together, and and then many more that are unregistered. So let's say, on the outside there are 3000 women art historians in the US (an educated guess). We still have no way of knowing how many there are around the world, maybe 7000 all told, but if entered into a searchable spreadsheet, by nationality, location, school, and specialization, I think it would be quite manageable. Here is the list I made with my students, I am thinking something like this, but bigger: 4184:

vision for what Knowledge could and should be! Get over it. I think you have ruined my list to the point where it is completely unrecognizable and laughable frankly. I cannot believe Sister Wendy is now on it, who is a children's television entertainer as far as I am concerned, and has never ever been seriously cited in any academic context that I have had anything to do with, and you have taken out all the French and Spanish art historians, and there are only two Italian ones left. Which is pretty funny, if you know anything about art, you might know that Italy and France are kind of important! I hope you get that fixed, and that you have not alienated all the art historians yet, so they might offer to help you.

976:: This is certainly the best case made for keeping the article (and I think the division that some are trying to paint as male-versus-female commentors on this is more a matter of experienced-wiki-editors-versus-relative-or-total-newcomers), and I will have to look at the sources more carefully (there's a thick layer of academic-speak that I have to weed through to understand to what degree it's talking about women in art, to what degree it is talking about women in art history, and to what degree it is talking about feminism in art history; I'm not one of those folks for whom that is a natural tongue). However, I'm still trying to picture what this article would look like in its ideal state. Does it include 3331:

think the discussion on this page, and my sandbox talk page is completely ridiculous. And a public relations disaster already. I also think that the page is being policed and/or vandalized rather than edited, and if Knowledge editors are really 90% male, then I certainly do not belong here. High-five guys! You have driven a committed and passionate writer, with some not so bad ideas, elsewhere. In any case, I am officially on vacation now, so my work here is done, for the next little while anyway, and possibly forever. Because this has been a truly *horrible* experience. Really really awful. And I really don't think I want to have anything to do with Knowledge ever again.

1308:

predominate the field (albeit not in leadership positions), which suggest to me at least a couple thousand - i.e., thousands. And even if your estimate of current worldwide women art historians is accurate at 7000, remember that your plans seem not to include just current art historians, but historical art historians; while they may not have been as plentiful in the past, that would still seem to add a considerable fraction on top of that. I certainly haven't looked at every list on Knowledge, but within the ones I have looked at, I cannot recall one being a tenth as long as what you seem to be aiming for, and it would seem to run into problems with our

2439:(setting aside any third gender or other options). If it is true, for instance, that women are underrepresented in that profession, as they are for instance in math and physics (I worked on a female physicist's article, forgot which, in the context of a women edit-a-thon last year, if I remember correctly--one of those women who couldn't get a real job or real position: I think she was the wife of a German refugee, at Princeton?), and such a truth, if it exists, should be bolstered by reliable sources, then we have a perfectly valid reason for writing it up. Such a rationale does not exist for List of male physicists, to take an obvious example. 1090:

interesting/pop culture way to see this in action: Check out NASAs Wikis-see the number of female astronauts-note who they are. Then look for the lists of minority astronauts...compare that to the list of White Male astronauts... yeah-NASA isn't daffy enough to make that last one so easy to find-because it's basically a math problem-minus out all the other individuals on the lists and you have your new list of WMs. Sometimes it simply isn't about all the men, or even some of the men; sometimes, it's about the women (ALL of them) that have been systematically ignored for thousands of years. TY rad supporters of equality for all.

1496:

think you may have justification, but that making the accusation does not further your case about whether the article should be deleted, which will be assessed on the merits of the arguments advanced, not on the perceived motives of those taking part in the discussion. At worst, someone reading your comments will see them as completely unreasonable, which will tend to discourage them from taking notice of your views. My experience over the years is that editors who assume good faith, even when they may have doubts, usually have a far more successful time here than those who are frequently ready to assume bad faith.

4277:)Go ahead, make that new list. I am all for lists. The more lists the better as far as I am concerned. There should be one for just women though because feminist or no, the treatment of male and female academics in the field, is different. Guys get bigger paychecks, more funding, better offices, more opportunities, and more fun all round. I want women to know the score, and we cannot do that that without understanding all the dimensions of the status of women in the field, versus the status of men in the field. Who knew analyzing statistics about art historians could be so *hot*!? 393:, which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I think it's excellent that you want to delve into the topic, and there are plenty of places on and off the Internet where it would be appropriate to do so. I am in no way judging what the proper subject for art historians is, I am using my long experience as a Knowledge editor to make a judgment as to what fits our guidelines of inclusion. I can find significant outside coverage on 2373:

Take the first name - it just says "Adams, Ann", none of the other boxes are filled in, no reference, no link to another WP article (although that would not count as a reference), nothing. How do we know there is even such a person, never mind an art historian notable enough to be on WP? It could be somebody's auntie that a bored teenaged added to the list as a joke. IMO all these list articles are just stupid and worthless as encyclopedia articles, every name on that list should be deleted unless it is cited to a reliable source establishing notability.

859:

she has evidently seen the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit as an ideal medium for publishing original research that has not received coverage elsewhere. All that is fully understandable. What is less understandable is that she persists in that view after repeatedly having it explained, both on this page and elsewhere, that Knowledge policies and guidelines say otherwise. Both she and the one other single-purpose account that has argued for keeping, in attempting to argue to keep the article, have in fact made an astonishingly strong case for deletion.

2744:). Some of us have already admitted that the article needs severely edited/pruned if it's going to stay active -- this suggestion wasn't readily accepted by some of the first editors to flag the article (who want to simply delete). I look forward to working with those of you who are willing to put in the time to flesh out this article, including writing pages for those listed who are unlinked. Just because there is not a current page does not mean the listed individuals are unwarranted (this will be a case-by-case issue according to Knowledge 3101:

articles, is especially relevant because of the active editathons in this and related areas--a guide like this to needed articles would benefit the encyclopedia, and whether it benefits the encyclopedia is the basic criterion for everything (it;'s the specific principle behind our most basic policy, IAR if necessary). (Incidentally, tho women may be the majority of contemporary art historians, this was probably not the case before the very late 20th century,and certainly not for the 19th century and earlier.)

1764:, the tool that I use to mark articles that to bring them into the articles for deletion process.) I can also tell you that it is normal for an article that has been brought to AFD to get the attention of editors, because there is a listing for doing just that, and then Gene93K comes along and does fine work placing it in certain subcategories by interest, so editors particularly interested in those categories can find those discussions. I would appreciate if you would retract your unfounded accusation. -- 2453:, "selection criteria". And the simplest way to create such a list and have it be meaningful is to include, as is common practice in tons of list articles, only entries for people with articles on Knowledge. Simple. One could make an argument for allowing redlinks, but that's fraught with problems better handled on the talk page, though such a list with red links (the equivalent of our current list, really, but with lots of square brackets) easily falls into DIRECTORY territory. 4423:, I do not think we should let that editor's insulting derision dictate content of the article any more than we let it dictate the flow of the AFD discussion. Sister Wendy is the host of a number of BBC art documentaries popular among adults, as well as the author of many books, both on art and otherwise. Whether those who aim their work at the common people rather than the privileged academic audience should be excluded is something that can be discussed on the Talk page. -- 872:"Does not duplicate information found elsewhere", "The subject is covered in no other venue, not even by the College Art Association, so Knowledge is now home to new scholarship in the field, unavailable anywhere else, in the world", and other forms of words saying that we should keep it because there is no substantial coverage in existing sources, and because it is original research that Knowledge can publish. Unfortunately, Vhfs is showing a remarkable 2212:. As it stands, this is a nothing more than a poorly-sourced list of names. As mentioned previously, Knowledge is not a directory, and very few of the art historians listed within the article currently have a Knowledge page, which I believe undermines the notability of the list. Meanwhile, in attempting to keep the article, the creator has threatened to write to Ms Magazine, mentioned football a few times, attempted to justify the article through 1448:"Keeping tabs on your activities", as in, say, having your talk page on his watch list, would be neither weird nor perverse. He was communicating with you on that page, so it would make sense for him to have it on his watch list, and he would thus be notified when things like the listing of the article for this deletion discussion appeared on that page. (Note: I am not saying that he is doing this; I neither have nor want access to his watch list.) 2877:"There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Knowledge:What Knowledge is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." 3831:

Nationality, Dates, Specialization and Profession. This makes for easy perusal. The columns of "Specialization" and "Profession" advantageously provide more than one piece of information in some instances. I think it's an overall good article. I see no reason to delete it. I would change the name to "List of female art historians". The term "women" is politicized and by contrast the term "female" tends to be more simply indicative of gender.

718:. I still think this was the wrong way to go about it, and it would have been more productive to start from scratch rather than completely reworking the preexisting page (really the same thing in the end perhaps), but whatever. Once you're there, how you got there matters less. We still should also have a master list(s) of all WP articles on art historians subdivided by nationality and by specialization, complementary to the category system. 2634:(better, historiography). Feminism is an ongoing struggle, and for our purpose, Knowledge, we're still very much in what in my discipline has been called the "look, there's a woman, and there's another" stage--the stage of recuperating history. Either way, the best thing any of us can do, those who see and those who don't see various types of systemic bias, is to write the articles that are missing. But I digress--thanks for your comment, 2923:"A renewed and theoretically developed as well as activist feminist consciousness initially mandated the historical recovery of the contribution of women as artists to art’s international histories to counter the effective erasure of the history of women as artists by the modern discipline of art history. This has also led to a rediscovery of the contributions of women as art historians to the discipline itself." 4083:

caused established users to get upset and need to correct the errors (and instead of admitting mistakes she became more defensive). My issue with this is how we as a community respond to mistakes and the unforgiving nature of not welcoming new users (esp. new users with good intentions). VHFS has made some much needed suggestions, I think we needed a list like this one and I hope we see more from this user.

3053:—in contrast to the balance of doctorates earned in fields like philosophy, math, etc.. Note that I am NOT arguing that they have equal pay or professional opportunities, and faculty makeup would be another conversation. A List of Art Historians seems like a place to start, if you really need a list page. I'd rather just see the articles created. This thread is long, but has anyone pointed out the great 75: 4511:. This may not be the place to bring this up (I don't know where would be), but I think it is seriously worth considering the possibility that User:Vhfs is not only trolling but also hoaxing. Having first taken the assertions of being an academic expert at face value, I now think it highly likely that this user is in fact a disgruntled student trying not-so-subtly to make the academic art historian 3674:? To make him feel bad? To punish him for disagreeing here, in the hope that he'll be less likely to disagree in some future AfD? This just reinforces WikiTribalism, the regrettable tendency for deletionists to mass together to support AfDs and completionists to mass together to oppose them. In addition to good faith, might we assume that not all our colleagues here are always knaves and fools? 1781:: A list of names is not original research. The definition of research, according to OED online: "Systematic investigation or inquiry aimed at contributing to knowledge of a theory, topic, etc., by careful consideration, observation, or study of a subject." Nor is this list a "directory." Nor does every name on every Knowledge list have its own entry (though I do understand that, according to 1916:- The lack of those other articles doesn't inherently mean that we cannot have this article, of course; I pointed to them in my original filing mainly because if the either existed, it might be a good candidate for "merge" (and if the "men" article had existed and had survived an AFD in the past, that would make some strong points for arguing that this article should survive as well.) -- 3547:) 11:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC) It occurs to me that like many academics you think of Knowledge as not having peer review, but consider this potentially a feature rather than a bug. In fact, Knowledge is subject to peer review, only your peers in this context are random people on the Internet. If you want to be treated as more than a random person on the Internet, find a different outlet. -- 416:

field, unavailable anywhere else, in the world. And there are plenty of excellent sources, the online dictionary of art historians, to name just one. It is so absurd to me that I would have to fight to keep this entry. Knowledge has a real problem. You better address it or I am going to write to Ms Magazine about it. I might just do it anyway because this is total fucking bullshit. (

3351:

you can call people "motherfuckers" all you like, and I'll chalk that down to enthusiasm, but it's hardly the way to get people to help you save the article in the first place. And again, a footnote to that dictionary doesn't make a person notable by our standards (not every academic is notable--I'm not) any more than a link to a faculty directory at a university or a phonebook.

1789:, some editors should consider lending their knowledge and experience to one of the other 4.5 million articles, as their work on this subject no longer seems to be aligned with Knowledge's mission: "to empower and engage people...to collect and develop educational content..." They seem to be more concerned with using their power and privilege to destroy this much-needed list. -- 3231:

basic listing on a faculty list would not), and where that reference includes mention of the individuals gender (not because we should list only those for whom the gender is a significant attribute, but for the mundane reason that, well, we've already had to take one man off of the list; names that sound feminine to a modern American may be masculine in other places and times.)

1488:, and one of the requests that came up there was a request from you concerning a page that I had deleted. I posted a message there, suggesting that the content of the article could be made available to you, perhaps by email, or perhaps by undeletion, leaving the decision to an independent administrator to make. By this time, I had had a significant amount of contact with you, 1086:

corresponding "All the Mens" list, and feels as though their equal rights have been squashed, we're still saying and showing that it matters to have women, gender and all, in these fields. And in doing so, no rights have been taken from any man, anywhere. Essentially every list such as this, prior to when, would have been all men...so, those list are there, throughout history.

985:, as well as concerns about it being more a directory than something encyclopedic? Or is it limited to "notable" women art historians, which would seem to run against the goal of at least some involved here, because the women in the field have failed to receive due note? Or is there some third vision that I'm missing? I'd be interested in hearing your perception of it. -- 2322: 3226:- as the original Article For Deletion nominator, I am finding that the superior efforts by some editors to find references that I missed have brought the topic to a point where we have, if not yet 100% solidly crossed a rubicon of notability, reached the point where it seems quite likely that line will be crossed with a bit more development. To avoid the 1492:. What is more, one of those requests, specifically addressed to me, was one which I would never have seen had I not chosen to come back and check how you were getting on. It does not seem to me, under those circumstances, in any way sinister or malicious that I was by then taking enough notice of what you were doing that I saw this deletion discussion. 2169:(Lynn M. Osen, MIT Press, 1974; my copy says it's the 15th printing from 1999). And you will also note that that list is almost entirely bluelinks. This list, on the other hand, mostly lists people with no Knowledge article yet and sources for separating out women as an interesting subclass of the art historians seem hard to find or nonexistent. — 1480:

follow up on things they have already done, in various ways, so that an editor is quite likely to check on things related to what he or she has recently had involvement with. Since you are concerned about how I came to this discussion, I will tell you. My first awareness of your existence came as a result of your posting a request for help at

4128:

his or her preferred search engine anyway), yet the problem with only leaving blued entries in such a list is that, in doing so, we deliberately undermine its advantages over, say, categories, using Knowledge's writing process as a reference instead of the person's academic reputation. Being a geographer by profession, I know there're some

1362:. The list has been significantly improved since my earlier !vote: the density of names with linked articles is now much higher (although still not yet close to one; it looks like that change is still in progress) and there is some referenced introductory text on the general subject. I'm still not entirely convinced that this topic meets 893:"And that is why we need this list! TO help it grow and change, to help it develop some badly needed self-reflexivity." In other words, the purpose of the page is to serve a campaign to promote and publicise a cause which Vhfs believes is deserving of more attention. However, that again is, under Knowledge policy, a reason for 4033:, and having carefully read the continuing debate, I changed my view and came to support the retention of the substantially improved page (again, please see above). The discussion here has been most enlightening, with many editors making good and useful points, and has certainly resulted in a net improvement to Knowledge. 439:, there'd be a place for a well-written article on the historical and changing place of women in the field. And as a bonus, the publication of such an article in a reliable source would make both good reference for Knowledge and support the argument that Knowledge should cover it, because it's being covered elsewhere. -- 4687:- even connecting the user to a specified outside person in trying to suggest it may not be then bridges some privacy concern. I have edited the specific accusation out of your comment on that basis, and hope that an administrator might review its inclusion so that it can be deleted from the record if need be. -- 4025:. As is customary, I have been watching this debate since my initial contribution. At first I was inclined towards deletion for this page (please see above), on the ground that at the time it was an indiscriminate list and therefore breached our guidelines on such matters. Later, following excellent work by 4587:

Do not snow close, snow close is for when the opinion seems unanimous by all other editors towards !keep when only the nominator is the dissenting. There have been convincing arguments by both side, and would not qualify for a snow keep as consensus needs to be assessed. Wait until the 7 days are up.

4342:

alphabetized by last name, although sortable on other criteria. As for a list of feminist art critics, that would seem to be a different list (surely with some overlap); the existence of this list would not rule out that as a separate article, and there is a good case to be made for a feminist list's

4183:

I am not sure if you have noticed this...but I am not someone who merely accepts the status quo, as it is organized or presented to me in Knowledge, or anywhere else. "Be realistic demand the impossible!" is one of my most cherished sayings. And I am not defensive in the slightest. I have a different

4127:

On the other hand, I actually do think lists (and not just internal working lists) can benefit from adding redlinks. Now, I know that pretty much every current guideline urges editors to do anything but that (and, instead, to write sub-stubs paraphrasing those external links anyone can find via using

3501:

I did not join Knowledge or academia to make friends. I feel terrible for alienating a gaggle of pedantic twits who seemed to have joined Knowledge only so they can tell people what to do. The list in its current state is completely pathetic and devoid of the original spirit in which it was proposed,

3330:

The list in my sandbox is the complete list of men *and* women, not just men, of course all one would have to do is remove the 200 or so women. Again, I did not catalogue it, it comes straight from the dictionary of art historians website, so it needs to be thoroughly footnoted. Um, for the record, I

3160:

this is such an important and unique list, besides it becoming a bad PR issue if we delete it - it would an unfortunate to have lost this for our future new users. Red links can be a tool to collaborate on new things. This should not be a debate about the list but rather a debate about each entry for

1271:

deleted another article I worked on for over *two months* with my students, on university art museums and galleries, in what I would call a vindictive manner, and I was forced to petition to have it undeleted (and the process can take over two months if you are wondering), so I would have to say that

738:

Tell me why you can make seasonal pages for football teams, that include notable and non-notable teams and players, statistics, and not have similar pages for departments and universities? I cannot help the fact that this idea is so new and fresh, nobody gets it, not even people in my own discipline.

4123:

women art historians (as intended by the list's creator) is completely beyond the scope of Knowledge. Other editors have already elaborated on this in extensive fashion, so I just want to note that this touches the very principles of Knowledge, and it's been quite a bold effort (to say the least) by

1696:

Anyway, all the push back I am getting for this project, actually has nothing to do with this list, which would be, under normal circumstance, completely unremarkable. It has only attracted some weird unwanted attention because of a much bigger, much more radical project I want to undertake. I think

1479:

Vhfs, your comments about the numbers of articles and the number of Wikipedians, followed by "What are the chances the same editor would swoop in twice", appear to be based on an assumption that people select what they do on Knowledge at random. That is far from being so. It is common for editors to

1203:

instructive as to how this debate is likely to be assessed. A solution proposed there might well be appropriate here, that of converting this list to a category. Rather than maintain a list of women art historians, you can add ] to articles for each member of the category, and a category page will

1162:

You're taking an unnecessarily aggressive tone in your responses -- especially the bold striking, which comes off as incredibly dismissive and redundant. Can you clarify how a list of women art historians is "promotional" and why it matters that such a list does not already exist? Because Knowledge?

1141:

You really do your case no good at all by misrepresenting the case for deletion as being about men: the case for deletion is that the article does not satisfy Knowledge's inclusion criteria. Leaving that aside, your argument is substantially about using Knowledge to promote further exposure of women

858:

It seems that Vhfs, like many people, has come to Knowledge in perfectly good faith, in the sincere belief that Knowledge is a good place to use for the purpose of promoting a cause which she believes deserves more attention. Like many people (including myself when I first started editing Knowledge)

4399:

It's not hard to see how this can happen. On average, English wikipedia will have more thorough coverage of art historians in the English-speaking world. Editors working on a deadline to identify the most notable art historians from the original list will find more existing articles for people who

4038:

However, although we have made substantial progress in improving the article and understanding the relevant issues, I feel that some contributors to this discussion have been profoundly and repeatedly intemperate. I am also deeply concerned that one editor in particular consistently ascribes to all

3350:

Well, there are a couple of editors in this very AfD who are trying to keep the article, which I thought was the purpose to begin with. Reasons for not including people without Knowledge articles were given and supported, and I supplied the article with text that in my opinion warrants a "keep". So

2605:

has outlined above. Strip down to bluelinks, and start writing well sourced stub/start articles for important art historians who were removed from the list. (Save a draft somewhere in your sandbox so you can add names back in as you write articles for each.) The trouble here is that women have been

2372:

says "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Knowledge's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Knowledge is not, as well as the notability guidelines" but these policies are routinely flouted in hundreds of article such as this one.

1495:

I offer you a word of advice for taking part in discussions on Knowledge. Avoid making accusations of bad faith against other editors, even if you believe the accusations are justified, because doing so gives a negative impression of you to other editors. At best, someone reading your comments will

1395:

decided to weigh in on this question. There are 21,407,333 Wikipedians, and over 4,519,307 articles. What are the chances the same editor would swoop in twice, on two very different kinds of articles, whose only similarity is that *I* happen to be involved in them? Fairly low I think, unless he is,

1338:

has a clear case for notability (it includes two topic-specific associations and a separate title article with many relevant sources). But in this case, I don't see reliable sourcing elsewhere for treating women art historians, specifically, as a noteworthy class of people. (I can find sourcing for

807:

I heartily agree with the sentiment voiced by Vhfs. That is why I don't edit sports-related articles, because I'm not interested in that stuff and find it completely trivial. However, never mind how unfortunate I think this is, from an encyclopedic point of view, even minor sports figures are often

4572:

has given us no reason to doubt her academic expertise. If she has found this debate upsetting, she is not the first Wikipedian to find AfD an unwelcome surprise and she will probably not be the last. I see no point in speculating; let's drop the stick, Snow Close this AfD as Keep, and go back to

4214:

Even if you are the page creator, you simply do not own the article and cannot lock out any edits from anyone due to you not liking them. (Though if you have a reason not to like it, you can bring it up on the talk page and explain why they shouldn't be on the list.) Also, you don't have to accept

4082:

does not feel welcome here in wikipedia (as she mentioned above) and has lashed out in reaction. And most of this is caused by her not understanding how to edit/basic order of things (such as write articles first, then make lists after) because she is a new user and when she made minor mistakes it

2716:

We need to be careful about slotting them in a "women" category; some of us may recall the rather loud and public struggle not that long ago about the category of women novelists (I believe it was; some writerly section), where the creation of the subcategory was seen as simply taking women out of

1006:

This list needs some editorial work, but it provides a badly needed representation of women in a field (my field) where they are often marginalized despite being the dominant gender. Although most art history departments are largely populated by women, they are often chaired or directed by men. If

908:

If Vhfs wants "Knowledge to expand and grow in new, unpredictable ways" then she is perfectly free to suggest changing Knowledge's polices to allow that to happen, but this deletion discussion will be assessed by the closing administrator on the basis of currently existing policies and guidelines.

745:

Otherwise, good luck with all the football team pages. Great work. Important work. Clearly information that is unavailable elsewhere. Really. Football. That is what I think of when I think about true civilization, and the best parts of humanity. Football will take us into the future and affirm our

415:

I am using my long term experience as an art historian to try to impress upon you that this list is a worthy and important topic, exactly because it is exceptional. The subject is covered in no other venue, not even by the College Art Association, so Knowledge is now home to new scholarship in the

311:

The subject of women-who-are-art-historians does not get significant coverage that I'm finding, and doesn't have a corresponding topic article. We do not have a general list of art historians nor a list of men art historians, and this does not appear to be a field where gender of the academic is a

4537:

I think that would be a bit drastic, and I would also encourage you not to jump to conclusions. I think Vhfs is probably just reacting to the fact that one of her first articles got nominated for deletion, and is feeling irate. Once she has time to cool down I'm sure she'll want to put all this

4253:

Not sure why the table. It needs to be alphabetized. It shouldn't be JUST women, but FEMINISTS. There are probably some men that belong on the list, too. Feminism should be the philosophical or political stance of the art historian in order to be included. There aren't that many. I'll work on it,

3954:

Vhfs it is offensive to link that here - because it has nothing to do with what is going in here. You received no rape or death threats and as far as I can tell no-one even referenced your gender during this debate - on the other hand you have called editors mofos and accused them of all sorts of

3688:

Yes, it's useful. Afds should be based on what the content is and its appropriation in policy, not in subjective emotions. I see a ton of this, saying that it's the 'not all men' or 'privileged' crowd which is mainly focusing and creating animosity towards the editors. I'm not going to comment on

3657:

at all. If BusStop were new, this would simply be WP:BITE, shaming the new user for their lack of policy-based arguments and couching the bite in arcane WP acronyms intended to drive the point home to the audience while vexing the newbie. If BusStop is a salty old hand with thousands of edits (as

3293:

that version comes straight from the Dictionary of Art Historians, and if you want to use it, it has to be properly footnoted before it goes out. That is why I did not post it, and kept it in my sandbox. Plus I still think there needs to be a separate one just for women. Both...okay fine. You can

3230:

concerns, I feel we should limit it not just to blue links, but to blue links+names with references that suggest a high likelihood of being able to meet notability requirements should an article be created. (As example, a reference to a listing in the Dictionary of Art Historians would qualify; a

2633:

I don't think it must be acknowledged. I suppose you could say it's baked into our notability guidelines to the extent that we require reliable sources, but it's not like it would be wise to shift away from reliable sources. Knowledge can create much hullabaloo, but we can't really create history

1085:

In a world where positive influence and inspiration for women and young girls isn't easily found-list such as these say, "scholarship like this is for you too." When we highlight even the smallest population of women, though it may really upset the "Some Men" out there who don't see a list of the

741:

I can't believe you guys. You seem to think you get to make all the decisions. Knowledge is a collective project, if you want to keep helping Knowledge to expand and grow in new, unpredictable ways, you have to let new strong voices with different perspectives in. Voices that happen to be female.

658:

either, which in any event we'd expect some justification for splitting out women as a subgroup for this particular occupation, as doing so may make sense for some but not other occupations. If the list's defender's comments are any indication, however, women art historians is not a recognized or

371:

If football teams are encyclopedic, then art history departments are as well. If we can make lists of women artists, women astronauts, and women scientists, then we can make lists of women art historians. Or, more properly, as far as I am concerned: Lists of art historians who happen to be women!

3775:

when referring to the first version of the article about 9/11, because it was written in haste about the event by the editor that first created it. That doesn't make the event non-notable, nor the article deletable. The conspiracy theories on why TV is Satan may have some good prose, interesting

2104:

I was writing an informal and common sense endorsement, not WikiLawyering. In strict policy terms, the topic is clearly notable and the mediocre sourcing is no grounds for deletion, I am pointing out that sources should be easily found, and the deletion argument IP advances sounds a lot like an

363:

Whether or not their work addresses gender in an explicit way is irrelevant, their gender is only important in so far as they appear to be grossly under represented. That is why the original title was "Art historians who happen to be women." Obviously I think that gender is related to the career

360:

It is *exactly* because the subject does not get coverage that it is important! I think there should be a list of all art historians, and I have one in my sandbox, but as I have pointed out to you before, the reason why this list is important is because: A. Art history is an incredibly small and

4314:

and it probably should not in an article such as this. This despite the fact that this article distinguishes between male and female. Researchers or merely curious readers have a part of a database of sorts at their fingertips with an article such as this. Aren't you referring to a hypothetical

3830:

The article is focussed. This is a quality that is important. The area of study set out by the title creates a scope that is inherently interesting. The attractiveness of that scope contributes to the article's usefulness because it is a pleasant article to peruse. The columns are useful: Name,

1960:

occupation, but instead generally expect some showing that the particular group (whether ethnic, sex, etc.) has been recognized in secondary sources as of relevance to a cultural or historic understanding of that occupation. So every protest above that this is novel work or that we should do it

1582:

You stated earlier "You seem to think you get to make all the decisions. Knowledge is a collective project". Yes, Knowledge is a collective project. That includes the many, many thousands of people, both female and male, who have worked (and continue to work) to formulate and refine the various

3100:

art history is a distinct profession, and there are a large number of women in the field, so the most notable of them will justify articles by WP:PROF. The problem of redlinks is solved by making articles--and the argument just above of this particular topic leading itself particularly well to

2342:

The noting of the absence of a topic article served toward being rigorous about checking for notability; while the absence does not prove lack of notability, the presence of a topic article, particularly had it survived an AFD itself, would have been clear indication that the general topic was

1307:

That JamesBWatson was involved in another deletion is not surprising; he is an active Knowledge editor and an administrator, so he gets involved in a lot. My statement of thousands come from their being 3500 registered and the assertion of another art historian in this thread that females now

1089:

Ideally, women and men would support this-that's where gender is truly negated here: we have to come together in our understandings that gender still matters. Claiming it doesn't is like insisting race is a non-issue now (I'm throwing all the shade possible now as I type this...). This is an

686:

here, and even when doing something as factually mundane as indexing Knowledge articles by verifiable facts, we try to follow established practices that make sense for the subject matter rather than inventing our own. Show that there are secondary sources expressly discussing the role and/or

3078:

while in general I think redlink lists are rather unhelpful, they can also be a tool to invite others to collaborate and participate to build article in an underserved topic area, conceptually, the list seems sufficiently noteworthy, I'd recommend that we update the the redlinks to point to

4403:

I suggest listing the currently-omitted art historians at a convenient place -- perhaps the talk page. Provide, where possible, some lead references to their work. That will allow you, and others, to extend the list by identifying additional notable art historians and providing additional

3964:

receive here - instead I see editors patiently explaining that the main reasons you detailed for keeping this article were actually excellent reasons to delete, since you admitted the topic isn't covered outside Knowledge and it therefore must exist here first - which belies a fundamental

3502:

and now has less entries than the online dictionary of art historians, and is even more standardized and boring. These "improvements" were made mostly by men, who are not art historians, as far as I can tell. Believe me when I tell you I am completely fascinated to see what happens next.

2539:

will agree with me here, that article development is the single best way to put notable scholars on the map. Creating directory-style lists, even with the best of intents, is not. Thank you Nat and G S, and I really hope that someone will do some work on this article. The pruning is easy,

691:) and the analysis would change. A better use of editor time might be to research individual women art historians to write and expand our biographical articles on them, and if editors want to keep a working list of missing articles for their own benefit they can do so in their userspace. 2468:

On a separate note: I have no problem with activism, but it needs to be done properly and usefully. There is no point in claiming SYSTEMIC BIAS in this discussion (unless to counter something obviously stupid); it's a larger Wiki matter. To those who wish to improve Knowledge, and its

2717:

the category of novelists. Women should not be categorized as "women art historians" unless they are also categorized under some other subcategory of "art historians" (along topical or perhaps national lines); barring that, they should simply be in the category of "art historians". --

2456:

This is the problem with our current article: it's a directory, especially given the table format, lacking only place of employment and email address (and one has "African" as a profession??). Given the lack of a rationale for this list (that is, a rationale that can be claimed to be

1204:

be automatically generated for it. This will cut down the number of people on the list, as many of them are likely to be not notable by wikipedia standards, but it also has a somewhat lower bar for keeping compared to a list or article and it is much easier to maintain than a list.

864:

Leaving aside such irrelevances as "You better address it or I am going to write to Ms Magazine about it", "Tell me why you can make seasonal pages for football teams", "Football will take us into the future and affirm our collective humanity every step of the way. I can't wait" (See

367:

Also, and please do not take this personally, but as you are not an art historian, I am not sure you are properly qualified to be judging what the proper subject for art historians is. Because they don't necessarily work on gender they should not be listed? That makes no sense to me.

840:

I'm not sure why you think there's an anti-female agenda here, but the chip on your shoulder is probably not the best way to convince people that the article should stay. Just because an editor thinks the article is not enyclopedic does not necessarily make them a misogynist.

4395:

observes, though, that a good deal has been lost. "You have taken out all the French and Spanish art historians,: Vhfs writes, "and there are only two Italian ones left." Plus, we've inserted a children’s TV personality, Sister Wendy, who Vhfs says really doesn't belong.

4159:

Axolotl, thanks, but let me take issue with one little thing: the "second half" isn't about women artists. (Besides the fact that the issue of women artist and woman art historian is mixed up inextricably: see talk page.) The WCA, for instance, is an organization run by art

2540:

establishing a rationale (of the kind I sketched above, perhaps) is a bit more difficult--but surely, with so many new accounts here who may have read the Ms Magazine blog posting and are possibly actually working in the discipline, there's someone on board who can do this.

3959:

gender so if anyone is guilty of what is described In that article it's you. Please assume good faith and stop attacking the motives of editors here with passive aggressive links to horrible descriptions of misogynistic harassment on the internet, which is exactly what you

2416:

are lacking for almost all of this list, suggesting a lack of notability of the subject. 2) What references there are, are almost entirely to a website called 'www.dictionaryofarthistorians.org', suggesting that even if the article was well-referenced, it would be a

2614:

This is a serious question. I am happy to have that conversation on my or someone else's talk page, or the talk page of a relevant project, though I am sure there is probably a proper process for this. I and others interested in this question will also be at the

1455:

The list you indicate is not in "article space", so it is not subject to the same guidelines that articles are. As to whether it is unwieldy, I am accessing this from a high-speed Internet connection on a computer that is only a few years old. Not everyone is so

361:

under appreciated discipline, the standard list has only 2475 on it, and B. There are only 200 women on that list! Most art historians, let alone the general public, are not even aware of this. This project is part of an effort to bring attention to the problem!

3294:

make the big searchable by gender...but I still think there has to be a comprehensive one for women only also. MOFOS. Because interesting things emerge, always, when you focus on the various dimensions of one category. I have more to say but I am traveling. (

1760:, I can tell you that when I did so, I was unaware of any other kerfuffle that you had been involved in. I did not read your Talk page until you started your personal attack on JamesBWatson (the posts that you see "from me" there were placed automatically by 3394:

We need more dedicated females users like yourself, I am sorry you have had a really horrible experience thus far with Knowledge but I encourage you to stick around. You are doing important things, if I can be of help to you please feel free to talk to me.

3185:

this is an important contribution to an ongoing debate trying to bring gender parity to different areas of knowledge. The article needs to be improved but it is a very useful and much needed first step. I am thankful for this and for similar posts such as

1527:

since you imagine, so easily, that it could be construed as a bribe. But I am greatly relieved to learn that the article will "be assessed on the merits of the arguments advanced, not on the perceived motives of those taking part in the discussion."

1583:

policies, guidelines, and procedures that, while imperfect, have shaped Knowledge into this great-if-imperfect resource that it is. So when you call on us to ignore what they have done, you are not asking us to act as if it's a collective project. --

1451:

It is often good for the encyclopedia for an experienced editor to keep an eye on an editor who is either having problems or causing trouble. These are not your intimate secrets here, these are your public edits on a project that is collaborative in

4724:

is not an academic but a troll with an agenda to discredit feminist editing by ridiculous and extreme conduct. I found it odd that while the original list contained a horde of black-text nonentities it missed such a distinguished historian as

3003:

the vast majority don't even have articles about them, and redlinked lists are discouraged. Women in art history doesn't seem to be a sufficiently covered topic unlike some other fields. I suggest the creator focus their efforts on building a

1400:

page on the French Knowledge, and then that "Knowledge's dude problem" page (surprisingly that didn't go anywhere...) Anyhow, on another subject entirely, I found this amazing list! Which goes up to 5000, and it does not seem too unwieldy.

4400:

work in English, and will find it easier to create and extend articles when the subjects work primarily in English. The one-week deadline of an AfD worsens this systemic bias: when time is short, editors reach for the low-hanging fruit.

663:

is not met...which also means there is not any basis for listing nonnotable names. And as this is barely even a list of articles, given how few bluelinks there are (and even some of those point to disambiguation pages), it does not meet

4315:

different article with a different title? I'm glad you initiated and worked on this article. But I take exception to the purpose that you are suggesting this article (list) serves. This article also serves entirely unrelated purposes.

1343:

art history and historians, but that appears to be a different topic.) Certainly, if this is kept, it should be pared back to only those people who have their own Knowledge articles, per standard Knowledge rules for lists of people.

280: 52:. Consensus is clear enough, particularly after signficant improvements were apparently made to the article. Discussion about the proper specifics (e.g., inclusion of redlinks) are best left to the editorial process, not AfD. 3312:

I was just suggesting that we use your sandbox as a resource, since you've already gone to all the work of cataloguing a large number of male art historians. (And by the way, call me ignorant, but what does "MOFOS" mean?)

388:

I understand that you think that because there is not coverage elsewhere, it is important that it gets covered here. However, that flies against the most basic statement of what qualifies for an article on Knowledge, our

3965:

misunderstanding of the project. Your behavior here has been esp immature esp since you claim to be an academic, and if you really want to fight sexism on Knowledge this is not the front lines, it's very far from it. --

2606:

systematically excluded from the histories of most disciplines, and thus it is much harder to find the sources for articles on women. This is something that must be acknowledged by the 90% male editorship of Knowledge:

2461:. However, a pruning of this list, which I could envision as a. giving it a lead (it needs a lead) with a referenced rationale and b. pruning to keep only those entries with blue links, would immediately sway me to 816:

and valuable academics don't. Same goes for almost anybody having played a minor role in some obscure soap. Hence, these people are notable whereas many academics miss the bar. Like it or not, it's a fact of life.

2747:

policy). At the same time, I'd only ask some of the commenters here to consider their initial reactions to the article, and understand how their judgements negatively impact the growth of the Knowledge community.

637:

as failing all relevant guidelines and being essentially unworkable into something that does not. While there are a number of ways to arrive at a valid list of people, this doesn't meet any of them. There is no

4229:

Vhfs, ever noticed that if you yell at people and tell them they are laughable, that they then for some strange reason are less inclined to listen to you and work with you towards a common goal (a good list)?

3535:. As an academic you have privileged access to outlets for advocacy and the publication of your own research that others do not. For you to choose instead to enter a user-edited collaborative project in which 4215:

the status quo, you can do a proposal to get the rules changed, and if enough people agree with you on the way, then it will be implemented. Knowledge has its policies and guidelines, and afd is one of them.

4140:

of Knowledge). We should either explicitly indicate that these are merely article index pages, or allow for the addition of some (!) redlinks selected by a person able and willing to judge the related topic.

3939:

Vhfs, what are you trying to imply? I, myself am a woman and I've been editing Knowledge profusely. Sure I had a few vandals vandalize my userpage, add 'cockblack master' specifically. You just shrug it off.

4281:

I have to tell you this story...this semester one of my male students took me aside and very earnestly told me, that if I was nicer to people I would have more friends and get more support for my projects.

4136:, while some barely notable ones are included. This isn't just a compromise by which we take some losses (or whatever you might call it), but the ignorance of our own standards (i.e., notability is created 1994:(which would have to be well sourced and consist almost entirely of notable figures) has been in existence for a long enough time and is extensive enough to be split. In other words, this is a case where 980:

women art historians, which apparently includes thousands registered in the US alone (and certainly the list, under this title at least, should not be limited to the US), which runs into real problems of

2220:, in particular. Considering the article is already in danger of being deleted due to notability and sourcing concerns, those arguments do not seem like the most productive way to defend the article. 3049:

though I'm very much in favor of creating articles for female art historians, and art historians in general! But women earn the majority of doctorates in art history—75% in 1998 according to the NSF

483: 3729:

like it's policy based. But it's trivial for a WikiLawyer to take the sentiment and dress it up in the appropriate garb. Specifically, "interesting and useful" is actually not a terrible summary of

4114:

female art historians, then the text should be about their status in art history, not about women's status in art history or even arts in general. That said, I want to stress two additional points:

654:. Note also that the existing category structure is subdivided by field of study and by nationality, not by gender, and so there's no help there. Without a master list this can't be justified as a 2435:

There is no conceivable reason why a list of women art historians could not exist. I suppose the only thing that should be established in such an article is a rationale for why it should focus on

4124:

vhfs to interpret its "user-drivenness" as a free ticket for establishing her own agenda and just that. You don't join a chess club and then ask, "So, who wants to play some checkers?", do you?

364:

trajectory and pay scales of art historians who happen to be women, but I do not think that whether or not they deal with gender as a subject in their own work, is at all relevant to the list.

3026: 1523:

Do you think that maybe you guys are trying to sandbag this project with endless blahblah about "the rules" and authoritarian male bullshit? I officially rescind my offer to buy you a t-shirt

346:

This is an interesting and informative list which does not duplicate information found elsewhere. It would be helpful if more information were eventually provided on each individual listed. --

2311:

The nominator named the absence of a topic article as one reason for deletion. IMO the fact that this seems to be a neglected topic within WP should not be cause for us to neglect it even

1272:

it is very likely that his opinion on this matter is colored by our previous disagreements. If you are curious at all you can see for yourself what happened on my Sandbox talk page here:

4652:

So copy/pasting an identifiable living person's social media profile to an "anonymous" Knowledge userpage is not a matter of concern? It's not something I would want to happen to me. --

2269:. You might as well say we should keep a list of female house-owners because to delete it would be to further systemic bias. It's true that it would, but the subject is not notable. 4519:

look like a fool. Is there any way of putting a stop to this? I'm inclined to think eradicating the whole edit history and letting others start from scratch might be the way to go. --

3745:

was saying, I think, was that in this case they don't. As that point has been made many times above -- and what point has not? -- it seems a small lapse to slip into casual language.

1719:

I will point out that the list of Wikipedians by number of edits is in Knowledge space and not an article, similar to the various policy pages, and therefore has no bearing on this.

1442:

There may be 21 million Wikipedians; there are not 300 who have made as many edits to this project as JamesBWatson, so one would expect to see him in far more places than the average.

1044:

Like other people arguing for "keep", you say we should keep the article to promote further public exposure of people who you think at present does not have enough coverage. However,

274: 3139:

Great contributions! I wonder if it would be useful to separate the list into broader historical categories: 20th/21st centuries; 19th c.; ca, 1400-1800 (Early Modern); Pre-1400? --

1142:

art historians to public view, because you see them as not getting coverage so far. However, as already explained above, under Knowledge policy those are two reasons for deletion.

503: 2096: 1200: 82: 3057:

controversy? That might be something for the pro-list side to consider, if haven't already. Also, could some of these names be moved to the work actively being undertaken at

812:

than even many important academics. Simply because many more people are interested in, say, field hockey than Etruskan architecture. So field hockey players get coverage in

463: 950:

articles isn't relevant; the fact that no-one has taken the effort to make those lists doesn't mean that this list doesn't fulfil Knowledge's criteria on its own merits.

909:

Putting forward reasons which are directly contrary to those current policies and guidelines, because she doesn't like them, is unlikely to result in a "keep" decision.

1693: 1050:

under Knowledge policy (1) use of Knowledge to promote is unacceptable, and (2) lack of substantial coverage in existing reliable sources is a reason for deletion, so

206: 201: 3737:

which is most directly at question here. But "interesting and useful" is also easy to write and comes naturally to mind; why not let people write it occasionally? '

2879:

This seems like an appropriate cross-categorization that fulfills "recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes" since one can see similar lists at

233: 210: 1854:

my name and Watson's name from his comment. (Perhaps he figured out that Watson and I both already contribute to far more articles than most Knowledge editors?) --

761:

p.s. I have a list of art historians in my sandbox but it also needs to be footnotes, and I cannot do everything at once. As much as I would like to be able to. (

672:

would basically require a completely fresh start, which would be easier to do as a data dump from our category structure than by trying to work with this, so per

3689:

your theory of deletionists/inclusionists, but an 'interesting and useful article' is not an argument based on policy, which is what afds are meant to discuss.

2771: 193: 240: 1697:

the dudes are just trying to prevent me from getting any momentum. If you visit the talk page for my Sandbox you will understand what the real fuss is about.

3121:

angle, which is what many sources are talking about, but about women in the profession, not with the sources I have. (Also, thanks for your comments, DGG.)

1396:

you know, keeping tabs on my activities. That would be weird and perverse. Don't you think? I have only worked on three pages. Well five if you count the

4102:

The list has been basically re-written since the nomination, adapting it to Knowledge standards. In fact, the introduction now reads like an article on

3083:

pages for the redlinked pages. It seems like the notability discussion would be better served about each entry rather than the list itself, if at all.

1234: 3539:

is impossible and then act as though your privilege made you the arbiter of the contributions of others would probably only lead to disappointment. --

1412:

a t-shirt that says "I tried to delete the first list of women art historians in the world and I failed" if we get past 4000. I am really not kidding.

3263:

exist. I think it might be worth moving this page to the latter title, and expanding it to include men as well, possibly utilizing the contents of

4419:

Discussion for improving the list as this point is probably better placed on the article's talk page than on the AFD page. As for the exclusion of

431:"so Knowledge is now home to new scholarship in the field, unavailable anywhere else" - which is precisely and specifically one of the things that 2165:. The case for notability for female mathematicians is clear because of associations like the Association for Women in Mathematics and books like 1934:

Even without a merge—which would have been my preferred choice—this list is poorly sourced (only 4 refs) and consists of 90% non-notable names.

313: 3909: 3485:

Despite the creator's best efforts to argue that this is advocacy and original research, and to alienate anybody trying to improve the article,

398: 4310:

consists of many parameters of women's contribution to and involvement in the field of art history and related fields. It can't be reduced to

1607:

Please don't take this personally but I am just going to ignore you from now on if you don't mind. But check this out! It looks really great!

2880: 1956:

separate out women or other minorities in other fields. The better point is that we don't automatically make separate demographic lists for

320:, suggests that even the creator thinks that gender is not directly related to the nature of the career. As such, this seems unencylopedic. 1806: 1445:

The similarity between two list articles on the arts is not only that you were involved with them; they are both list articles on the arts.

1230: 295: 3565:, not the contributor. Please continue to discuss the content, not the person who nominated the article/whoever voted to !delete, thanks. 4004:. Most educational and encyclopedic. Has been and continues to be the subject of significant discussion in numerous secondary sources. — 2896: 2457:

encyclopedic--not activism, as sympathetic as I am to that cause), and given its current state (which is poor, very poor), I have to say

2265:

We shouldn't keep a list of female art historians merely because it would help to redress gender imbalance; that smacks of being here to

262: 3058: 1756:: I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming that the "push back" has "nothing to do with this list". As the editor who brought this to 1163:

Is there some master list of "fictional political parties" out there, from a reputable source, or should we take that one down as well?

842: 3212: 531: 4729:, which suggests that the creator of the list knew little about the topic. Do I have any proof of these suspicions? None whatsoever. 4210:

so to speak. Knowledge is a collaborative encyclopedia, where people can edit existing articles and improve their content. In short,

1692:), I just have not got around to adding them yet. But not everyone listed in Knowledge has articles about them, do they? Such as the 1485: 1439:: "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." 526:

this version. A version that is properly cited and linked to articles should be kept. This is just an unreferenced list of names.

197: 91: 3846: 3653:, who is only following a common Knowledge practice, but to question whether the practice makes sense. Let's suppose we don't know 1952:

Pointing out that there isn't a separate list for men is a rather fatuous deletion argument that rather misses the point of why we

317: 3369:

I would like to encourage you to stay, especially since "keep" seems like a likely outcome, but if you do, you might want to read

3771:

Because it isn't an argument, afds should be based on merits in policy, not subjective emotions as I've said before. I could say

3216: 2918: 2188: 1810: 1567: 1129: 1125: 1106: 1033: 1029: 939: 121: 2473:

Knowledge articles for such scholars, thereby undoing, at least partly, the DIRECTORY aspect of the current article. Thank you,

1278: 2333: 2252: 1785:, they should). I see no other reason why this list should not exist as long as all names have their own entries. According to 17: 4738: 4704: 4675: 4661: 4633: 4597: 4582: 4547: 4528: 4501: 4487: 4467: 4432: 4413: 4374: 4365:

art historians and that's the topic of discussion, so they don't need to be feminist (of one wave or another) to be included.

4352: 4324: 4291: 4263: 4239: 4224: 4197: 4173: 4150: 4092: 4066: 4048: 4015: 3994: 3974: 3949: 3931: 3898: 3858: 3840: 3785: 3754: 3698: 3683: 3633: 3611: 3588: 3574: 3556: 3522: 3496: 3475: 3452: 3434: 3404: 3382: 3360: 3343: 3322: 3303: 3284: 3246: 3199: 3176: 3148: 3130: 3112: 3092: 3070: 3038: 3017: 2989: 2952: 2938: 2912: 2859: 2838: 2808: 2790: 2757: 2726: 2711: 2695: 2672: 2643: 2628: 2593: 2572: 2549: 2522: 2505: 2482: 2430: 2400: 2382: 2352: 2337: 2278: 2256: 2229: 2200: 2178: 2114: 2086: 2065: 2029: 2007: 1976: 1943: 1925: 1904: 1863: 1830: 1793: 1773: 1746: 1728: 1710: 1680: 1653: 1620: 1592: 1548: 1511: 1468: 1424: 1375: 1353: 1321: 1296: 1259: 1238: 1213: 1190: 1176: 1157: 1110: 1071: 1016: 994: 959: 924: 850: 826: 794: 770: 755: 731: 704: 623: 593: 574: 552: 535: 515: 495: 475: 448: 425: 410: 381: 355: 339: 256: 58: 3896: 3088: 2968:

says, "This display presents a group of women working as historians and art historians in the Victorian period." It mentions

2184: 1335: 4164:, even though it also includes artists. Likewise, that statistical note is about art historians, not artists. Thank you, 252: 4680: 4657: 4524: 3584: 3552: 3544: 3492: 189: 64: 1608: 4492:

And a citation from the Daily Telegraph and from a peer-reviewed academic journal now solidify Sister Wendy's status.

107: 4358: 643: 2077:

WP:TNT doesn't apply; there's no reason, if more refs are desirable, that you can't add refs. An interesting topic.

302: 4726: 3927: 3518: 2985: 2934: 2908: 2329: 2266: 2248: 2150: 1668: 1563: 1544: 527: 3849:, but thought it would be best to not change it too much. Your title rolls off the tongue a bit easier, though. 80:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

4758: 3084: 2588: 2568: 947: 40: 3256: 2105:

attempt to grind a WP:AXE against feminism, anonymously, through an argument that's really just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

1892: 4146: 3471: 2174: 1802: 1371: 1349: 955: 4455: 3666:, and this is just point-scoring for the debate team. At this point, in any case, after all the hard work by 1408:

The bottom line is that we really have no idea how many women art historians there are, but I will gladly buy

1403: 2020:, with only the salvageable 10% of the article recreated into a more comprehensive list of women historians. 1397: 781:

do information that is available elsewhere. If your own field is not doing this, then we certainly will not.

4653: 4629: 4578: 4561: 4520: 4409: 3910:

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/#.U4JkHdT9BUM.twitter

3750: 3679: 3580: 3548: 3540: 3488: 3272: 3260: 3117:

I'm working on this a bit and I'm doing a terrible job and having a terrible time. It's easy to beef up the

3054: 3034: 3005: 2965: 2888: 2884: 2624: 2580:

per David Eppstein, cleanup, trim and/or redlink non-article subject persons. Advise all newcomers to read

2110: 2082: 1991: 1888: 1247: 943: 846: 669: 647: 639: 4695:) 23:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Added: I've flagged oversight; the material will be restored if I'm off-base. -- 4343:

existence. Do you specifically believe that a gender-based list should not (also) exist, and if so, why? --

1847:) 00:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Added later: Please note that my comment and the one preceding were made before 3970: 3208: 3195: 3013: 2824: 1507: 1481: 1153: 1067: 920: 570: 562: 268: 153: 1848: 1835:

If you feel you can show that JamesBWatson and I have conflicts of interest, you may raise a case at the

1798: 1790: 876:, both on this page and elsewhere: namely that under Knowledge policy those are in fact good reasons for 4754: 3487:

this will most likely be a useful tool in developing content related to notable women art historians. --

1366:

but it is a lot better and I want to hold off on deciding again until this set of changes is complete. —

900: 36: 2892: 1181:

That looks ripe for AfD to me, and you're very welcome to help the encyclopedia out by nominating it.

4078:

As a newer, female user to wikipedia myself, I can say it is an intimidating place sometimes. Clearly

2290:

I'm not referring to systematic bias in the outside world - the Real World - just the systematic bias

4734: 4700: 4692: 4671: 4543: 4483: 4428: 4348: 4235: 4103: 3915: 3854: 3670:

and others, the article is clearly tending toward keep; what's the point of tendentiously haranguing

3506: 3430: 3378: 3318: 3280: 3242: 3233:

For those of you new to the Articles For Deletion process, let me note that my change in stance does

3172: 3144: 3140: 2959: 2948: 2944: 2855: 2834: 2804: 2800: 2786: 2753: 2749: 2722: 2707: 2691: 2668: 2585: 2564: 2518: 2501: 2426: 2396: 2348: 2274: 2213: 2196: 2138: 2061: 2025: 2003: 1939: 1921: 1900: 1859: 1844: 1826: 1769: 1742: 1724: 1689: 1676: 1649: 1588: 1571: 1532: 1464: 1317: 1209: 1186: 1172: 1168: 1121: 1117: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1025: 1021: 1012: 1008: 990: 866: 822: 548: 444: 406: 335: 325: 137: 111: 56: 1839:, describing the supposed conflict and reasons why we should be barred from editing this article. -- 4142: 4133: 3467: 3227: 3118: 3066: 2656: 2418: 2240: 2170: 1733:

And for those interested in understanding Vhfs' position and reasons for creating the article, see

1367: 1345: 1284: 1226: 973: 951: 288: 96: 347: 4666:

I agree that it's distasteful, but maybe you could just leave a note on her talk page about it.

4625: 4593: 4574: 4405: 4320: 4220: 4044: 3945: 3894: 3836: 3781: 3746: 3694: 3675: 3667: 3629: 3607: 3570: 3370: 3030: 2620: 2442: 2225: 2106: 2078: 935: 665: 619: 589: 143: 74: 4478:, you are welcome to translate some of those articles into English, and add them to the list. 4447: 4274: 4259: 4088: 3966: 3663: 3621: 3448: 3400: 3204: 3191: 3166: 3009: 2378: 2217: 1971: 1884: 1761: 1503: 1392: 1268: 1255: 1149: 1063: 940:

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199920105/obo-9780199920105-0034.xml

916: 789: 726: 699: 566: 511: 491: 471: 351: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

4753:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

4361:, though at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in. The purpose of this list was 2187:, for the most part, contains only notable names, i.e. those with articles. And there's also 394: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

4684: 4565: 4514: 4497: 4370: 4312:"bigger paychecks, more funding, better offices, more opportunities, and more fun all round" 4169: 4062: 3990: 3356: 3126: 2639: 2545: 2478: 1782: 1309: 1164: 982: 651: 4730: 4696: 4688: 4667: 4539: 4479: 4456:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/Liste_d%27historiens_de_l%27art_et_de_th%C3%A9oriciens_de_l%27art

4443: 4424: 4344: 4231: 3850: 3734: 3440: 3426: 3374: 3314: 3290: 3276: 3238: 2872: 2851: 2830: 2782: 2718: 2703: 2687: 2664: 2536: 2514: 2497: 2422: 2392: 2344: 2284: 2270: 2192: 2057: 2021: 1999: 1935: 1917: 1896: 1855: 1840: 1822: 1765: 1738: 1720: 1672: 1645: 1604: 1584: 1524: 1460: 1409: 1388: 1313: 1205: 1182: 986: 818: 660: 655: 544: 440: 402: 331: 321: 53: 1644:

any of the information presented in the article due to it's staggering lack of sources.

1435:

You have now posted two bolded Keep recommendations. Please strike one of them out, per

4463: 4287: 4193: 4011: 3923: 3514: 3339: 3299: 3237:

stop the process; other editors have waded in with their own arguments for deletion. --

3062: 3050: 2981: 2930: 2921:

at an Oxford University Press bibliography-related page with the introduction stating,

2904: 2301: 2295: 2244: 2216:, tried to turn the deletion debate into men vs. women, and has been downright rude to 2146: 1836: 1706: 1616: 1559: 1540: 1420: 1292: 1279:

https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_university_art_museums_and_galleries_in_New_York_State

883: 873: 766: 751: 421: 377: 3888:. Meets notability guidelines. The need for this list is now articulated in the lede. 1961:

because no one else is doing it is by that measure actually an argument for deletion.

4620:. A quick scroll upward suggests that, at this moment, the last 13 opinions were all 4617: 4589: 4316: 4216: 4211: 4107: 4054: 4040: 3982: 3941: 3889: 3832: 3777: 3764: 3742: 3730: 3690: 3671: 3654: 3650: 3625: 3603: 3566: 3536: 3463: 3108: 2450: 2446: 2369: 2368:- could someone explain to me why lists such as this one are permitted on WP at all? 2221: 2162: 2017: 1995: 1786: 1757: 1436: 1363: 887: 809: 715: 677: 673: 615: 585: 432: 390: 312:

significant indicator of the type of work they do (as opposed to, say, a theoretical

2131: 2099:

are relevant to that comment. "It's interesting" does not establish notability: see

1609:

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/05/21/writing-her-in-wikipedia-as-feminist-activism/

4451: 4420: 4335: 4255: 4084: 4030: 3444: 3422: 3396: 3190:

for helping recognize parts of history that have been willfully deleted up to now.

3162: 2973: 2969: 2850:- article has improved significantly so my previous comment is not valid anymore.-- 2610:. Unfortunately, this is not the place to debate that, as per the scoldings above. 2413: 2374: 2053: 1965: 1880: 1251: 813: 783: 720: 693: 683: 611: 507: 487: 467: 171: 159: 127: 4720:. On the basis of her behavior here, I think that there is reason to suspect that 1887:, and very little worth salvaging. May I also mention the lack of articles titled 227: 4564:'s comments might be wrong or right, and might also be a little bit too close to 106:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

4493: 4366: 4165: 4058: 4026: 3986: 3418: 3352: 3122: 2660: 2635: 2541: 2493: 2474: 2391:

That would be, very roughly and crudely put, why the article is listed at AfD.

2049: 607: 2740:

Many thanks to those with clear heads joining the conversation (specifically:

4721: 4569: 4475: 4459: 4392: 4283: 4189: 4079: 4006: 3919: 3532: 3510: 3391: 3335: 3295: 3268: 2977: 2926: 2900: 2142: 1702: 1664: 1612: 1555: 1536: 1416: 1334:. There are notable lists and categories along similar lines; for instance, 1288: 762: 747: 646:) within which this could function as an index of articles complementary to 417: 373: 1963:

And I agree with you on the dismal merge/expansion prospects of this list.

1490:

all of which had been initiated by requests of one sort or another from you

1273: 869:), the reasons given for keeping are essentially the following two points: 4448:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Historien_de_l%27art_fran%C3%A7ais

2608:

there is a systemic gender bias baked into the requirements for notability

3103: 2532: 1404:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits

3845:

I considered that possibility when I moved it from it's original title,

687:

experience of women in art history (as there undoubtedly are for women

3776:

content, but that wouldn't make the article notable in its own right.

714:

as improvements have rendered most of my arguments moot, particularly

2563:

but redlink the female art historians who do not yet have articles.

584:. As has been remarked, our policy is to avoid indiscriminate lists. 2343:

notable, and a properly curated list would likely be appropriate. --

3649:: Is this response useful? I take a moment here not to single out 3187: 4106:

and at least its second half should be transferred to the article

3773:

This article has terrible formatting and often has chopped wording

2686:

per DGG and Drmies, given the huge improvements to the article. --

2531:

Yes. I cannot stress this enough, and I think that old hands like

330:

Note: original nominator vote changed to Weak Keep; see below. --

4747:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3981:

Very uncouth, very faux pas. Wow. Would this have a parallel to

2778: 2616: 777:

As has already been expressed to you above in multiple ways, we

4452:

https://it.wikipedia.org/Categoria:Storici_dell%27arte_italiani

1895:? (If they existed, I would have suggested a merge. Oh, well.) 69: 4391:

and that it is, in Knowledge terms, significantly improved.

3080: 1165:

https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_fictional_political_parties

484:

list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions

100:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 2925:

The second sentence is what I wanted to note here. Thanks,

2823:- notability of topic not established by reliable sources, 2601:

pending cleanup under the clear and even handed guidelines

1053:

like most of the arguments advanced on this page for "keep"

934:

This list does, or could reasonably be expanded to, fulfil

746:

collective humanity every step of the way. I can't wait. (

314:

List of art historians specializing in the Renaissance era

4568:

to be entirely comfortable. Let's not speculate. I think

3027:

list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions

2659:

that I have seen in a long time. I agree completely with

1990:

this article may be merited - but only once an extensive

2655:. At this point, this is one of the worst examples of a 3264: 1851: 1734: 223: 219: 215: 2702:

And, as I've suggested above, add ] to each of them.

2132:

https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_female_mathematicians

287: 4404:

information about their contribution and notability.

2891:

does exist. If this list is kept, then we should add

659:

discussed grouping in secondary sources, which means

2097:

Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

1669:

Knowledge is not the place for Righting Great Wrongs

1201:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Indian women

1056:, your arguments are actually reasons for deletion. 874:

failure to hear what has repeatedly been said to her

504:

list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions

3658:happens to be the case), then presumably he's not 3561:I think it is vital to keep the discussion on the 401:, so that doesn't have the notability problem. -- 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 4761:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2412:- as per many others here. On two grounds: 1) 1694:Knowledge:List of Wikipedians by number of edits 464:list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions 2048:due to the cleanup performed on the article by 1274:https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Vhfs/sandbox 3847:List of art historians who happen to be women 3733:and is actually quite a decent shorthand for 2612:Where is the place to have that conversation? 1821:Well, thank you for that bad faith comment. 1663:it may have already been pointed out to you, 318:List of art historians who happen to be women 301: 120:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 90:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has 8: 4110:, imo. If this list is intended to be about 3025:Note: This debate has been included in the 2799:Thank you kindly for the helpful comment. -- 502:Note: This debate has been included in the 482:Note: This debate has been included in the 462:Note: This debate has been included in the 4387:It now appears that the list is headed for 2619:next week if anyone wants to discuss IRL.-- 2243:and in the interest of avoiding systematic 3024: 2306:"a dearth of articles on neglected topics" 501: 481: 461: 316:.) The original title given this article, 94:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 3769:why not let people write it occasionally? 3255:My main concern is that no corresponding 3188:https://en.wikipedia.org/Women_architects 2441:But while a link was given to "purpose" ( 3602:Totally interesting and useful article. 2943:Thanks for finding/posting this link! -- 2781:software; there are thousands of them. 1459:You may keep your bribes to yourself. -- 114:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 4132:influential geographers missing in the 3741:other factors can come into play; what 668:. Reconfiguring it into a valid master 4442:I am sorry I made fun of sister Windy 2305: 4513:Material deleted by another user for 2881:Category:Lists of women by occupation 7: 2319: 1640:, and there really isn't any way to 1570:outside this topic. The preceding 24: 2304:describes one of the problems as 1638:actually have articles about them 1499:The editor who uses the pseudonym 1486:Knowledge:Requests for undeletion 1391:, it *is* rather surprising that 1145:The editor who uses the pseudonym 1059:The editor who uses the pseudonym 912:The editor who uses the pseudonym 4446:. Not really. Look what I found! 4304:"I want women to know the score" 3955:nefarious deeds mostly based on 2766:By the way, this site is called 2320: 2189:category:Lists of mathematicians 1837:Conflict of Interest Noticeboard 1737:that she left on my talk page. 1574:comment was added at Vhfs (UTC). 650:, and so it doesn't fall within 73: 4359:List of feminist art historians 644:List of lists of art historians 543:. No need shown for this list. 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 3531:That's probably just as well, 3271:'s sandbox, or the pages from 2777:. A wiki is any website using 2294:Knowledge that's described at 1231:Why should I have a User Name? 606:, following excellent work by 1: 2584:well thought out post above. 2449:("criteria") or, better yet, 2315:, thus exacerbating the bias. 2185:List of female mathematicians 1336:Category:Women mathematicians 1199:You might find the debate at 942:. The fact that there are no 110:on the part of others and to 2883:. I think there should be a 2496:. Thanks for weighing in. 2492:Those are very good points, 2134:(04:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)) 391:General Notability Guideline 190:List of women art historians 65:List of women art historians 3051:Survey of Earned Doctorates 1047:as has been explained above 948:List of male art historians 328:) 16:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 4778: 4212:you don't own the article. 3257:List of men art historians 3059:WikiProject: Women Artists 2016:I agree. This needs to be 1893:List of men art historians 2044:I am changing my vote to 1688:At least 200 of them do ( 1267:I have to point out that 899:keeping the article: see 882:keeping the article: see 682:Bottom line, we don't do 4750:Please do not modify it. 4739:00:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC) 4705:00:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC) 4676:23:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4662:21:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4634:23:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4598:21:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4583:21:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4548:21:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4529:20:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4502:20:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4488:19:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4468:19:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4433:15:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4414:14:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4375:14:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4353:14:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4325:20:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4292:19:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4264:13:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4240:14:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4225:14:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4198:13:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4174:14:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4151:12:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4093:06:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4067:14:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4049:06:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 4016:00:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 3995:03:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 3975:23:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3950:23:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3932:23:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3899:14:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3859:19:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3841:15:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3786:15:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3755:15:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3699:15:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3684:15:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3634:14:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3612:05:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3589:14:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3575:14:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3557:11:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3523:11:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 3497:21:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 3476:20:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 3453:19:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 3435:14:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 3417:due to the good work by 3405:19:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 3383:14:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 3361:14:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 3344:13:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 3323:10:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 3304:01:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 3285:00:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 3247:19:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 3200:19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 3177:19:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 3149:19:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 3131:18:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 3113:18:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 3093:18:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 3071:18:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 3055:American Women Novelists 3039:16:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 3018:16:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2990:17:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2953:17:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2939:17:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2913:16:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2860:16:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 2839:15:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2809:15:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2791:15:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2758:15:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2727:15:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2712:15:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2696:11:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 2673:15:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2644:18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2629:15:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2594:15:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2573:14:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2550:14:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2523:14:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2506:13:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2483:13:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2445:), no link was given to 2431:13:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2401:13:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2383:13:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2353:17:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2338:17:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2279:13:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2257:10:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2230:07:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2201:13:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2179:04:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2115:11:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2087:02:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2066:01:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 2030:13:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 2008:01:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 1977:00:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 1944:00:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 1926:00:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 1905:00:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 1864:01:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 1831:00:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 1794:23:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 1774:21:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 1747:20:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 1729:20:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 1711:20:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 1681:19:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 1654:17:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 1621:15:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 1593:14:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 1549:10:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 1512:07:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 1469:02:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 1425:01:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 1376:00:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 1354:22:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 1322:01:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 1297:22:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 1260:20:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 1239:18:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 1214:13:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 1191:13:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 1177:20:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 1158:20:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 1111:15:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 1072:20:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 1017:14:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 995:15:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 960:10:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 925:09:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 851:03:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 827:14:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 795:03:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 771:00:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 756:00:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC) 732:16:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 705:17:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC) 624:06:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 594:14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC) 575:14:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC) 553:11:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC) 536:09:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC) 528:Barney the barney barney 516:05:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC) 496:05:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC) 476:05:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC) 449:22:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 426:22:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 411:17:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 382:16:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 356:16:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 340:19:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 59:01:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC) 32:Please do not modify it. 4624:. But there's no rush. 4573:improving the article. 3273:Category:Art historians 2889:Category:Art historians 1398:Franchise universitaire 648:Category:Art historians 152:; accounts blocked for 122:single-purpose accounts 92:policies and guidelines 3767:nor any other policy. 3261:List of art historians 3006:List of art historians 2885:List of art historians 1992:List of art historians 1889:List of art historians 1482:User talk:Vhfs/sandbox 944:List of art historians 670:list of art historians 640:List of art historians 3537:ownership of material 3217:few or no other edits 2330:Balaenoptera musculus 2318:Hope that's clearer. 2249:Balaenoptera musculus 1811:few or no other edits 1568:few or no other edits 1130:few or no other edits 1034:few or no other edits 4357:It's fine to make a 4104:women in art history 3219:outside this topic. 2167:Women in Mathematics 1813:outside this topic. 1132:outside this topic. 1036:outside this topic. 4134:list of geographers 4119:A complete list of 3119:Feminist art theory 2917:To add on, I found 2267:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS 1885:non-notable entries 1849:User:Unitedcrushers 974:User:VoluntarySlave 104:by counting votes. 83:not a majority vote 4654:Andreas Philopater 4562:Andreas Philopater 4521:Andreas Philopater 4383:Improving The List 3581:Andreas Philopater 3549:Andreas Philopater 3541:Andreas Philopater 3489:Andreas Philopater 3371:Knowledge:Civility 3008:as a first pass.-- 680:is not practical. 48:The result was 3935: 3918:comment added by 3725:Sure, it doesn't 3526: 3509:comment added by 3220: 3041: 2964:Got another one! 2899:is her obituary. 2893:Paula Hays Harper 2239:- sourced as per 2155: 2141:comment added by 1814: 1575: 1552: 1535:comment added by 1501: 1147: 1133: 1114: 1097:comment added by 1061: 1037: 914: 684:original research 518: 498: 478: 185: 184: 181: 108:assume good faith 4769: 4752: 4683:: Please review 4206:Vhfs, it is not 3934: 3912: 3892: 3579:My apologies. -- 3525: 3503: 3202: 3179: 2963: 2875:, which states, 2591: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2154: 2135: 2101: 2100: 2095:Two sections of 1998:is applicable. 1796: 1553: 1551: 1529: 1497: 1248:WP:NOTADIRECTORY 1143: 1115: 1113: 1091: 1057: 1019: 910: 814:reliable sources 433:Knowledge is not 399:women scientists 395:women astronauts 306: 305: 291: 243: 231: 213: 179: 167: 151: 135: 116: 86:, but instead a 77: 70: 34: 4777: 4776: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4759:deletion review 4748: 4727:Dame Joan Evans 4385: 3913: 3890: 3763:He didn't cite 3504: 3170: 3085:Jared Zimmerman 3081:draft namespace 2957: 2825:WP:NOTDIRECTORY 2589: 2565:Robert McClenon 2321: 2136: 1530: 1227:Voluntary Slave 1092: 563:WP:NOTDIRECTORY 248: 239: 204: 188: 169: 157: 141: 125: 112:sign your posts 68: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4775: 4773: 4764: 4763: 4743: 4742: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4678: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4555: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4532: 4531: 4505: 4504: 4490: 4472: 4471: 4436: 4435: 4384: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4279: 4278: 4267: 4266: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4186: 4185: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4154: 4153: 4143:Axolotl Nr.733 4125: 4116: 4115: 4100:Keep and split 4096: 4095: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4035: 4034: 4019: 4018: 3998: 3997: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3967:Obi-Wan Kenobi 3907: 3906: 3901: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3615: 3614: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3528: 3527: 3499: 3478: 3468:David Eppstein 3456: 3455: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3386: 3385: 3364: 3363: 3334:BRAVO MOFOS! ( 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3288: 3287: 3250: 3221: 3180: 3175:comment added 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3134: 3133: 3115: 3095: 3073: 3043: 3042: 3021: 3020: 3010:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2842: 2841: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2794: 2793: 2761: 2760: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2676: 2675: 2657:directory page 2648: 2647: 2646: 2596: 2575: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2526: 2525: 2508: 2487: 2486: 2433: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2386: 2385: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2326: 2316: 2309: 2299: 2288: 2260: 2259: 2241:VoluntarySlave 2233: 2232: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2181: 2171:David Eppstein 2129: 2128: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2090: 2089: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2011: 2010: 1981: 1980: 1947: 1946: 1929: 1928: 1908: 1907: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1833: 1816: 1815: 1799:Unitedcrushers 1791:Unitedcrushers 1776: 1750: 1749: 1731: 1699: 1698: 1683: 1625: 1624: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1577: 1576: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1493: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1446: 1443: 1440: 1430: 1429: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1368:David Eppstein 1346:David Eppstein 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1312:guidelines. -- 1302: 1301: 1285:VoluntarySlave 1262: 1241: 1225:I concur with 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1136: 1135: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1039: 1038: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 964: 963: 952:VoluntarySlave 928: 927: 906: 905: 904: 901:WP:NOTADVOCATE 891: 861: 860: 853: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 800: 799: 798: 797: 736: 735: 734: 629: 628: 627: 626: 597: 596: 577: 556: 538: 520: 519: 499: 479: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 358: 309: 308: 245: 183: 182: 78: 67: 62: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4774: 4762: 4760: 4756: 4751: 4745: 4744: 4740: 4736: 4732: 4728: 4723: 4719: 4716: 4715: 4706: 4702: 4698: 4694: 4690: 4686: 4682: 4679: 4677: 4673: 4669: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4659: 4655: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4635: 4631: 4627: 4626:MarkBernstein 4623: 4619: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4599: 4595: 4591: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4580: 4576: 4575:MarkBernstein 4571: 4567: 4563: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4549: 4545: 4541: 4538:behind her. 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4530: 4526: 4522: 4518: 4516: 4510: 4507: 4506: 4503: 4499: 4495: 4491: 4489: 4485: 4481: 4477: 4474: 4473: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4457: 4454:, And then... 4453: 4450:, And then... 4449: 4445: 4441: 4438: 4437: 4434: 4430: 4426: 4422: 4418: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4406:MarkBernstein 4401: 4397: 4394: 4390: 4382: 4376: 4372: 4368: 4364: 4360: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4350: 4346: 4341: 4337: 4334: 4333: 4326: 4322: 4318: 4313: 4309: 4305: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4276: 4272: 4269: 4268: 4265: 4261: 4257: 4256:--Sue Maberry 4252: 4251:Don't delete. 4249: 4248: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4222: 4218: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4182: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4167: 4163: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4126: 4122: 4118: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4108:women artists 4105: 4101: 4098: 4097: 4094: 4090: 4086: 4081: 4077: 4074: 4073: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4037: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4021: 4020: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4008: 4003: 4000: 3999: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3968: 3963: 3958: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3933: 3929: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3911: 3905: 3902: 3900: 3897: 3895: 3893: 3887: 3884: 3883: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3774: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3747:MarkBernstein 3744: 3743:User:Bus stop 3740: 3736: 3732: 3728: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3700: 3696: 3692: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3676:MarkBernstein 3673: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3620:So basically 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3598: 3597: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3529: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3500: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3479: 3477: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3458: 3457: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3393: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3332: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3292: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3251: 3249: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3229: 3225: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3184: 3181: 3178: 3174: 3168: 3164: 3159: 3156: 3155: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3105: 3099: 3096: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3077: 3074: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3045: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3031:Theredproject 3028: 3023: 3022: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3002: 2999: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2961: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2895:to the list. 2894: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2867: 2866: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2817: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2775: 2769: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2746: 2743: 2739: 2736: 2735: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2621:Theredproject 2618: 2613: 2609: 2604: 2600: 2597: 2595: 2592: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2576: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2559: 2558: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2509: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2485: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2466: 2464: 2460: 2454: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2438: 2434: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2415: 2411: 2408: 2407: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2371: 2367: 2364: 2363: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2317: 2314: 2310: 2307: 2303: 2300: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2286: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2235: 2234: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2214:WP:OTHERSTUFF 2211: 2208: 2207: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2133: 2127: 2124: 2123: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2107:MarkBernstein 2103: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2079:MarkBernstein 2076: 2073: 2072: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1988:at some point 1986:I think that 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1979: 1978: 1974: 1973: 1968: 1967: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1795: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1777: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1752: 1751: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1684: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1632:since almost 1631: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1603: 1600: 1599: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1526: 1522: 1519: 1518: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1500: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1447: 1444: 1441: 1438: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1428: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1413: 1411: 1406: 1405: 1399: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1342: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1328: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1300: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1281: 1280: 1275: 1270: 1266: 1263: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1242: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1221: 1220: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1202: 1198: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1146: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1134: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1087: 1082: 1079: 1078: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1060: 1055: 1054: 1049: 1048: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1005: 1002: 1001: 996: 992: 988: 984: 979: 975: 971: 968: 967: 966: 965: 961: 957: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 930: 929: 926: 922: 918: 913: 907: 902: 898: 897: 892: 889: 885: 881: 880: 875: 871: 870: 868: 867:WP:OTHERSTUFF 863: 862: 857: 854: 852: 848: 844: 843:209.90.140.72 839: 836: 835: 828: 824: 820: 815: 811: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 796: 792: 791: 786: 785: 780: 776: 775: 774: 772: 768: 764: 759: 757: 753: 749: 743: 737: 733: 729: 728: 723: 722: 717: 713: 709: 708: 707: 706: 702: 701: 696: 695: 690: 685: 679: 675: 671: 667: 662: 657: 653: 649: 645: 641: 636: 635: 631: 630: 625: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 600: 599: 598: 595: 591: 587: 583: 582: 578: 576: 572: 568: 564: 560: 557: 554: 550: 546: 542: 539: 537: 533: 529: 525: 522: 521: 517: 513: 509: 505: 500: 497: 493: 489: 485: 480: 477: 473: 469: 465: 460: 459: 450: 446: 442: 438: 434: 430: 429: 427: 423: 419: 414: 413: 412: 408: 404: 400: 396: 392: 387: 386: 385: 383: 379: 375: 369: 365: 359: 357: 353: 349: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 337: 333: 327: 323: 319: 315: 304: 300: 297: 294: 290: 286: 282: 279: 276: 273: 270: 267: 264: 261: 258: 254: 251: 250:Find sources: 246: 242: 238: 235: 229: 225: 221: 217: 212: 208: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 186: 177: 173: 165: 161: 155: 149: 145: 139: 133: 129: 123: 119: 115: 113: 109: 103: 99: 98: 93: 89: 85: 84: 79: 76: 72: 71: 66: 63: 61: 60: 57: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 4749: 4746: 4717: 4621: 4616:No problem, 4554: 4512: 4508: 4439: 4421:Sister Wendy 4402: 4398: 4388: 4386: 4362: 4339: 4338:: The table 4311: 4307: 4303: 4280: 4270: 4250: 4207: 4187: 4180: 4161: 4137: 4129: 4120: 4111: 4099: 4075: 4022: 4005: 4001: 3983:Godwin's law 3961: 3956: 3914:— Preceding 3908: 3903: 3885: 3772: 3768: 3738: 3726: 3659: 3646: 3599: 3562: 3505:— Preceding 3484: 3480: 3459: 3414: 3413: 3333: 3329: 3289: 3265:this version 3252: 3234: 3232: 3228:WP:DIRECTORY 3223: 3205:Anamarialeon 3192:Anamarialeon 3182: 3171:— Preceding 3161:notability. 3157: 3102: 3097: 3075: 3046: 3000: 2974:Emilia Dilke 2970:Anna Johnson 2922: 2876: 2868: 2847: 2820: 2819: 2773: 2767: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2683: 2651: 2650: 2611: 2607: 2602: 2598: 2581: 2577: 2560: 2510: 2470: 2467: 2462: 2458: 2455: 2440: 2436: 2419:WP:DIRECTORY 2409: 2365: 2312: 2291: 2236: 2218:JamesBWatson 2209: 2166: 2137:— Preceding 2130: 2126:Hey hey hey! 2125: 2074: 2045: 1987: 1970: 1964: 1962: 1957: 1953: 1913: 1875: 1874: 1778: 1753: 1735:this comment 1700: 1685: 1660: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1627: 1626: 1601: 1531:— Preceding 1520: 1504:JamesBWatson 1498: 1489: 1414: 1407: 1402: 1393:JamesBWatson 1383: 1382: 1359: 1340: 1331: 1330: 1282: 1277: 1269:JamesBWatson 1264: 1246:per nom and 1243: 1222: 1150:JamesBWatson 1144: 1093:— Preceding 1088: 1084: 1080: 1064:JamesBWatson 1058: 1052: 1051: 1046: 1045: 1003: 977: 969: 931: 917:JamesBWatson 911: 895: 894: 878: 877: 855: 837: 788: 782: 778: 760: 744: 740: 725: 719: 711: 710:Changing to 698: 692: 688: 681: 633: 632: 603: 580: 579: 567:IronGargoyle 558: 540: 523: 436: 370: 366: 362: 329: 310: 298: 292: 284: 277: 271: 265: 259: 249: 236: 175: 163: 154:sockpuppetry 147: 136:; suspected 131: 117: 105: 101: 95: 87: 81: 49: 47: 31: 28: 4697:Nat Gertler 4689:Nat Gertler 4444:Nat Gertler 4425:Nat Gertler 4345:Nat Gertler 3739:We all know 3668:User:DrMies 3239:Nat Gertler 3215:) has made 2719:Nat Gertler 2515:Nat Gertler 2443:WP:LISTPURP 2345:Nat Gertler 1918:Nat Gertler 1856:Nat Gertler 1841:Nat Gertler 1809:) has made 1766:Nat Gertler 1605:Nat Gertler 1585:Nat Gertler 1566:) has made 1525:Nat Gertler 1461:Nat Gertler 1456:privileged. 1410:Nat Gertler 1389:Nat Gertler 1387:-- In fact 1314:Nat Gertler 1128:) has made 1032:) has made 987:Nat Gertler 936:WP:LISTPURP 666:WP:LISTPURP 602:Changed to 441:Nat Gertler 403:Nat Gertler 332:Nat Gertler 322:Nat Gertler 275:free images 4731:Xxanthippe 4668:G S Palmer 4540:G S Palmer 4480:G S Palmer 4232:Randykitty 4162:historians 3851:G S Palmer 3664:WP:ILIKEIT 3622:WP:ILIKEIT 3441:G S Palmer 3427:G S Palmer 3375:G S Palmer 3315:G S Palmer 3291:G S Palmer 3277:G S Palmer 3141:Studiojunk 2976:. Thanks, 2960:Studiojunk 2945:Studiojunk 2852:Staberinde 2831:Staberinde 2801:Studiojunk 2783:G S Palmer 2750:Studiojunk 2704:GoldenRing 2688:Randykitty 2665:Randykitty 2617:WikiConUSA 2537:Randykitty 2498:G S Palmer 2423:GoldenRing 2393:GoldenRing 2285:GoldenRing 2271:GoldenRing 2193:Epicgenius 2058:Epicgenius 2022:Epicgenius 2000:G S Palmer 1936:Epicgenius 1897:Epicgenius 1823:G S Palmer 1762:WP:TWINKLE 1739:G S Palmer 1721:G S Palmer 1673:G S Palmer 1646:G S Palmer 1283:I am with 1206:GoldenRing 1183:GoldenRing 1169:Studiojunk 1118:Sarah DeLe 1099:Sarah DeLe 1022:Studiojunk 1009:Studiojunk 819:Randykitty 808:much more 545:Xxanthippe 88:discussion 54:j⚛e decker 4755:talk page 4722:User:Vhfs 4685:WP:OUTING 4570:User:Vhfs 4566:WP:OUTING 4515:WP:OUTING 4302:You say, 4208:your list 3224:Weak keep 3063:StaceyEOB 2887:as well; 2768:Knowledge 2590:Chihuahua 1883:, mostly 1881:unsourced 1879:– Mostly 1783:WP:NOTIFS 1636:of these 1310:WP:LENGTH 983:WP:LENGTH 652:WP:NOTDUP 642:(or even 508:• Gene93k 488:• Gene93k 468:• Gene93k 144:canvassed 138:canvassed 97:consensus 37:talk page 4757:or in a 4618:Tutelary 4590:Tutelary 4517:concerns 4317:Bus stop 4271:Comment. 4217:Tutelary 4055:RomanSpa 4041:RomanSpa 3942:Tutelary 3928:contribs 3916:unsigned 3891:gobonobo 3833:Bus stop 3778:Tutelary 3735:WP:LISTN 3691:Tutelary 3672:Bus stop 3662:saying 3655:Bus stop 3651:Tutelary 3626:Tutelary 3604:Bus stop 3567:Tutelary 3519:contribs 3507:unsigned 3259:or even 3213:contribs 2873:WP:LISTN 2366:Question 2222:Drpickem 2161:So? See 2151:contribs 2139:unsigned 1807:contribs 1686:Comment: 1661:Comment: 1572:unsigned 1564:contribs 1545:contribs 1533:unsigned 1341:feminist 1126:contribs 1107:contribs 1095:unsigned 1030:contribs 970:Question 661:WP:LISTN 656:WP:SPLIT 616:RomanSpa 586:RomanSpa 234:View log 176:username 170:{{subst: 164:username 158:{{subst: 148:username 142:{{subst: 132:username 126:{{subst: 39:or in a 4718:Comment 4681:Andreas 4509:comment 4440:comment 4336:Maberry 4308:"score" 4254:too. -- 4181:Comment 4138:outside 4112:notable 4085:Jooojay 4076:Comment 4031:Jooojay 4023:Comment 3904:Comment 3647:sidebar 3563:content 3445:Jooojay 3443:thanks 3423:Jooojay 3397:Jooojay 3253:Comment 3173:undated 3163:Jooojay 2986:contrib 2935:contrib 2909:contrib 2738:Comment 2511:Comment 2375:Smeat75 2302:WP:BIAS 2296:WP:BIAS 2245:WP:BIAS 2054:Jooojay 1966:postdlf 1914:Comment 1852:deleted 1754:Comment 1602:Comment 1521:Comment 1452:nature. 1360:Comment 1252:SW3 5DL 884:WP:NOTE 856:Delete. 838:Comment 810:notable 784:postdlf 721:postdlf 694:postdlf 689:artists 612:Jooojay 348:Eahonig 281:WP refs 269:scholar 207:protect 202:history 140:users: 4494:Drmies 4367:Drmies 4306:. The 4166:Drmies 4130:hugely 4059:Drmies 4027:Drmies 3987:Shenme 3962:didn't 3765:WP:GNG 3731:WP:GNG 3464:WP:HEY 3419:Drmies 3353:Drmies 3123:Drmies 3047:delete 3001:delete 2821:Delete 2742:Drmies 2661:Drmies 2652:Delete 2636:Drmies 2603:Drmies 2586:Killer 2582:Drmies 2542:Drmies 2494:Drmies 2475:Drmies 2459:delete 2451:WP:CSC 2447:WP:LSC 2410:Delete 2370:WP:SAL 2292:within 2210:Delete 2163:WP:WAX 2050:Drmies 1996:WP:TNT 1876:Delete 1787:WP:COI 1758:WP:AFD 1667:, but 1642:verify 1630:Delete 1437:WP:AFD 1364:WP:GNG 1332:Delete 1244:Delete 888:WP:NOR 716:WP:TNT 678:WP:ATD 674:WP:TNT 634:Delete 608:Drmies 581:Delete 559:Delete 541:Delete 524:Delete 253:Google 211:delete 4363:women 4053:HEY! 3957:their 3727:sound 3109:talk 2471:write 2437:women 2414:WP:RS 2018:nuked 1958:every 1287:!!! ( 296:JSTOR 257:books 241:Stats 228:views 220:watch 216:links 118:Note: 16:< 4735:talk 4701:talk 4693:talk 4672:talk 4658:talk 4630:talk 4622:keep 4594:talk 4579:talk 4544:talk 4525:talk 4498:talk 4484:talk 4476:Vhfs 4464:talk 4460:Vhfs 4458::) ( 4429:talk 4410:talk 4393:Vhfs 4389:Keep 4371:talk 4349:talk 4321:talk 4288:talk 4284:Vhfs 4275:talk 4260:talk 4236:talk 4221:talk 4194:talk 4190:Vhfs 4170:talk 4147:talk 4089:talk 4080:Vhfs 4063:talk 4045:talk 4029:and 4012:talk 4007:Cirt 4002:Keep 3991:talk 3971:talk 3946:talk 3924:talk 3920:Vhfs 3886:Keep 3855:talk 3837:talk 3782:talk 3751:talk 3695:talk 3680:talk 3660:only 3630:talk 3608:talk 3600:Keep 3585:talk 3571:talk 3553:talk 3545:talk 3533:Vhfs 3515:talk 3511:Vhfs 3493:talk 3481:keep 3472:talk 3462:per 3460:Keep 3449:talk 3431:talk 3421:and 3415:Keep 3401:talk 3392:Vhfs 3379:talk 3357:talk 3340:talk 3336:Vhfs 3319:talk 3300:talk 3296:Vhfs 3281:talk 3269:Vhfs 3243:talk 3209:talk 3196:talk 3183:Keep 3167:talk 3158:Keep 3145:talk 3127:talk 3098:Keep 3089:talk 3076:Keep 3067:talk 3035:talk 3014:talk 2982:talk 2978:Erik 2972:and 2966:This 2949:talk 2931:talk 2927:Erik 2919:this 2905:talk 2901:Erik 2897:Here 2871:per 2869:Keep 2856:talk 2848:Keep 2835:talk 2805:talk 2787:talk 2779:wiki 2774:wiki 2772:not 2754:talk 2723:talk 2708:talk 2692:talk 2684:Keep 2669:talk 2640:talk 2625:talk 2599:Keep 2578:Keep 2569:talk 2561:Keep 2546:talk 2535:and 2519:talk 2502:talk 2479:talk 2463:keep 2427:talk 2397:talk 2379:talk 2349:talk 2334:talk 2313:more 2275:talk 2253:talk 2237:Keep 2226:talk 2197:talk 2183:The 2175:talk 2147:talk 2143:Vhfs 2111:talk 2083:talk 2075:Keep 2062:talk 2052:and 2046:keep 2026:talk 2004:talk 1972:talk 1954:ever 1940:talk 1922:talk 1901:talk 1891:and 1860:talk 1845:talk 1827:talk 1803:talk 1779:Keep 1770:talk 1743:talk 1725:talk 1707:talk 1703:Vhfs 1690:talk 1677:talk 1665:Vhfs 1650:talk 1634:none 1617:talk 1613:Vhfs 1589:talk 1560:talk 1556:Vhfs 1541:talk 1537:Vhfs 1508:talk 1465:talk 1421:talk 1417:Vhfs 1384:Keep 1372:talk 1350:talk 1318:talk 1293:talk 1289:Vhfs 1265:Keep 1256:talk 1235:talk 1229:. -- 1223:Keep 1210:talk 1187:talk 1173:talk 1154:talk 1122:talk 1103:talk 1081:Keep 1068:talk 1026:talk 1013:talk 1004:Keep 991:talk 972:for 956:talk 932:Keep 921:talk 886:and 847:talk 823:talk 790:talk 779:only 767:talk 763:Vhfs 752:talk 748:Vhfs 727:talk 712:keep 700:talk 620:talk 610:and 604:Keep 590:talk 571:talk 561:per 549:talk 532:talk 512:talk 492:talk 472:talk 445:talk 422:talk 418:Vhfs 407:talk 397:and 378:talk 374:Vhfs 352:talk 336:talk 326:talk 289:FENS 263:news 224:logs 198:talk 194:edit 50:keep 4121:all 3985:? 3466:. — 3425:. 3373:. 3275:. 3267:of 3235:not 3169:) 3104:DGG 2988:) 2937:) 2911:) 2533:DGG 2421:. 2283:Hi 1671:. 1506:" ( 1152:" ( 1066:" ( 978:all 946:or 919:" ( 896:not 879:not 437:Ms. 303:TWL 232:– ( 172:csp 168:or 160:csm 128:spa 102:not 4737:) 4703:) 4674:) 4660:) 4632:) 4596:) 4581:) 4546:) 4527:) 4500:) 4486:) 4466:) 4431:) 4412:) 4373:) 4351:) 4340:is 4323:) 4294:) 4290:) 4262:) 4238:) 4230:-- 4223:) 4200:) 4196:) 4172:) 4149:) 4141:-- 4091:) 4065:) 4047:) 4014:) 3993:) 3973:) 3948:) 3930:) 3926:• 3857:) 3839:) 3784:) 3753:) 3697:) 3682:) 3632:) 3624:? 3610:) 3587:) 3573:) 3555:) 3521:) 3517:• 3495:) 3483:. 3474:) 3451:) 3433:) 3403:) 3381:) 3359:) 3346:) 3342:) 3321:) 3306:) 3302:) 3283:) 3245:) 3211:• 3203:— 3198:) 3147:) 3129:) 3111:) 3091:) 3069:) 3061:? 3037:) 3029:. 3016:) 2984:| 2951:) 2933:| 2907:| 2858:) 2837:) 2829:-- 2807:) 2789:) 2770:, 2756:) 2748:-- 2725:) 2710:) 2694:) 2671:) 2642:) 2627:) 2571:) 2548:) 2521:) 2504:) 2481:) 2429:) 2399:) 2381:) 2351:) 2336:) 2328:-- 2277:) 2255:) 2247:. 2228:) 2199:) 2191:. 2177:) 2153:) 2149:• 2113:) 2085:) 2064:) 2056:. 2028:) 2006:) 1975:) 1942:) 1924:) 1903:) 1862:) 1829:) 1805:• 1797:— 1772:) 1745:) 1727:) 1713:) 1709:) 1679:) 1652:) 1619:) 1591:) 1562:• 1554:— 1547:) 1543:• 1510:) 1467:) 1423:) 1374:) 1352:) 1320:) 1295:) 1258:) 1250:. 1237:) 1212:) 1189:) 1175:) 1167:-- 1156:) 1124:• 1116:— 1109:) 1105:• 1070:) 1028:• 1020:— 1015:) 993:) 958:) 923:) 849:) 825:) 817:-- 793:) 769:) 758:) 754:) 730:) 703:) 676:, 622:) 614:. 592:) 573:) 565:. 551:) 534:) 514:) 506:. 494:) 486:. 474:) 466:. 447:) 428:) 424:) 409:) 380:) 354:) 338:) 283:) 226:| 222:| 218:| 214:| 209:| 205:| 200:| 196:| 178:}} 166:}} 156:: 150:}} 134:}} 124:: 4741:. 4733:( 4699:( 4691:( 4670:( 4656:( 4628:( 4592:( 4577:( 4542:( 4523:( 4496:( 4482:( 4470:) 4462:( 4427:( 4408:( 4369:( 4347:( 4319:( 4286:( 4282:( 4273:( 4258:( 4234:( 4219:( 4192:( 4188:( 4168:( 4145:( 4087:( 4061:( 4043:( 4010:( 3989:( 3969:( 3944:( 3922:( 3853:( 3835:( 3780:( 3749:( 3693:( 3678:( 3628:( 3606:( 3583:( 3569:( 3551:( 3543:( 3513:( 3491:( 3470:( 3447:( 3429:( 3399:( 3377:( 3355:( 3338:( 3317:( 3298:( 3279:( 3241:( 3207:( 3194:( 3165:( 3143:( 3125:( 3107:( 3087:( 3065:( 3033:( 3012:( 2980:( 2962:: 2958:@ 2947:( 2929:( 2903:( 2854:( 2833:( 2827:. 2803:( 2785:( 2752:( 2721:( 2706:( 2690:( 2667:( 2638:( 2623:( 2567:( 2544:( 2517:( 2500:( 2477:( 2465:. 2425:( 2395:( 2377:( 2347:( 2332:( 2308:. 2298:. 2287:! 2273:( 2251:( 2224:( 2195:( 2173:( 2145:( 2109:( 2081:( 2060:( 2024:( 2002:( 1969:( 1938:( 1920:( 1899:( 1858:( 1843:( 1825:( 1801:( 1768:( 1741:( 1723:( 1705:( 1701:( 1675:( 1648:( 1628:* 1623:) 1615:( 1611:( 1587:( 1558:( 1539:( 1502:" 1463:( 1427:) 1419:( 1415:( 1370:( 1348:( 1344:— 1316:( 1299:) 1291:( 1254:( 1233:( 1208:( 1185:( 1171:( 1148:" 1120:( 1101:( 1062:" 1024:( 1011:( 989:( 962:. 954:( 915:" 903:. 890:. 845:( 821:( 787:( 773:) 765:( 750:( 724:( 697:( 618:( 588:( 569:( 555:. 547:( 530:( 510:( 490:( 470:( 443:( 420:( 405:( 384:) 376:( 372:( 350:( 334:( 324:( 307:) 299:· 293:· 285:· 278:· 272:· 266:· 260:· 255:( 247:( 244:) 237:· 230:) 192:( 180:. 174:| 162:| 146:| 130:|

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/List of women art historians - Knowledge

Index