Actual crux of the issue. Stop trying to turn every fucking thing into a gender war.
"Strickland's case wasn't an anomaly, said Tripodi. "What I discovered is even women who are meeting these notoriously difficult hurdles of notability are still twice as likely to be considered non-notable and nominated for deletion.""
"The Wikimedia Foundation, which funds Wikipedia, acknowledges that articles on the online encyclopedia are not representative of the impact that women have had throughout history, saying that mirrors the world's gender biases."
This fact is irrelevant (and misleadingly presented), it is about nominations, not deletions.
If biases have been introduced in one way then there well could be additional biases which need to be checked for or which have come about through the first bias through correlation.
Whilst I don't agree with turning everything into a gender war I do feel Wikipedia as a "factual resource" is open for correct ridicule if it's not being fair and unbiased. Otherwise it's not truely factual.
If you see a pattern of people applying a standard disequitably, whether or not the standard is explicitly disequitable it’s worth discussing.
It’s like when I went to high school with a bunch of other 1% kids who believe their success is entirely about their hard work.
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" (Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals"). All manufactured social conflicts take something that can happen, exaggerate it, and harp on it.
Remember: we must extirpate every last vestige of "bias" from this earth so that the universe shall be made pure! We are just an inch away from utopia! All that stands in our way is that bias. If only it could be weeded out, exterminated from every dark crevice and corner of the land, from every brain cell of every man, woman, and child, all of our problems would be solved, for all would be clean and kosher. Until then, no stone shall remain unturned, no word of phrase left interrogated, until we are sure that every heart and every mind is one with the Party line.
If I understand your claim correctly, it is just that simply there weren't any reliable sources to verify the information because there are not any articles about these women; however, the article further examines (or at least considers) that exact fact as being part of the issue - that these women are not being written about at the same rate as men.
> part of the issue - that these women are not being written about at the same rate as men.
The CBC article is plainly an (ignorant) attack on Wikipedia. You say yourself that the problem doesn't seem to lie at Wikipedia, so how is it acceptable to attack Wikipedia over it?