 Hi everybody, this presentation is called Endurance Against Obivion, the case of the Articles for Delation category with gender perspective in Wikipedia. This is the agenda that I am going to propose you, we are going to see the introduction, the methods, results and some conclusions that we make. Let's start with the introduction. We are analyzing the Articles for Delation category in the English Wikipedia with a gender perspective. This is how an article for delation debate looks like. You have a biography, here you have a proposal, then you have a number of votes and at the end you have a result of the debate. Pay attention to this part, the voting process, the delete and keep hearing in this part of the debate. The methods. We use the content analysis to obtain the sequence of the votes in the debate. Also we use a quantitative method to compare the extension of the debates. This is the period of time that we are analyzing from the 1st of January to the 11th of March in 2020, just the same year of the pandemic started but just before it happened. This is Diversity Over Time, a graphic by Marc-Miquel Ribe, shows the total of articles by gender. In blue you can see the men which shows the imbalance in the gender perspective of the Wikipedia in English. The selection of the biographies for this study, well in that period of time 45,000 articles were created, from them almost 4,000 were nominated to the category articles for deletion, 1,500 were biographies and we took scientists from all these biographies. Just 115 scientists. For the votes we use only two categories for the votes, keep and delete. There are many other options, for example, keep redirect or no consensus, but because practically all the content is kept in these other types of votes, we assume that all are kept. And there are many other flavors of the votes, for example, the leads of the lead, speedy the lead happens as well in keep, but we just reduce all to a same category, let's say, so we can make the numbers and count with keep and lead easily. This is a binary studio de facto, we want to include all the genders, but we don't have many non-binary or transgender biographies, only two were part of the 1,500 biographies and they were not scientists. The results, well we have two kinds of results, the sequence and the number of votes, let's see the sequences. This is the sequence distribution, you have here in order all the patterns of the sequences, the longer the bar, the longer the debate and in blue you have the keep votes and red the lead votes. This is the percentage of the state of frequencies, it means that in the first position, in the first vote, there is more than 60% of probabilities that the vote is the lead and according to the deletion process goes on, this percentage is reducing, which is very interesting. If we see the same graphic but divided by gender, we see a difference in the length of the debates and the pattern is more or less the same for both male and female, it's the longer the debate, the more often the votes go for keep, to maintain the biographies. The probability of the next vote, do the previous vote in this table shows that it's easier to keep the same line of voting and it's less probable that you change from one kind of vote to another, for example here. If you have a delete vote, you have 79% of probability to keep the same delete vote in the next vote and to change it, you just have 21% of probability, so if you have a line of delete votes and then you need to change it to keep alive a biographies, there is only a 21% of probability that's going to happen and for the number of votes, we found that the debates for the female biographies are longer, in average is 6.9 number of votes for women biographies and for men biographies, the average is 4.6, so the debates for women are longer. Some conclusions to these results, to save the biographies of both men and women, it seems that it is necessary to extend the debates, which tends to increase the probability of having votes in favor of maintaining the biographies. The problem is that extending the debates requires resources, especially temporary ones, that women editors do not have, due to the small number of editors with free time. The title of the articles for the lesion category already implicitly suggests a voting result, to encourage discussion to be neutral, the title should be as well, this is the credits, the presentation was done by me David and my supervisor Nuria Ferran Ferrer, thank you very much.