Having an article marked for deletion means nothing, it happens all the time, and is one of the ways power flows in Wikipedia's anarchic domain (and I'm not sure this kind of power play is really gendered, it is more of a conservative, restraining, force).
While I highly regard Wikipedia's amazing and quite successful project, and hope there will be more editors that are female (oriented, not necessarily biological), there is still a lot that's not there, perhaps will never be, yet matters for various cultures and localities around the world, Wikipedia English has a built in bias (hint: English), and it's not a gendered one.
There's a bot I think that marks new articles as speedy delete by default. At least I wrote a stub, marked as such, and seconds after completion got a deletion notice.
Weird. Did it include any references? I haven't had these problems people are mentioning in the past few years, and I create articles now and then. They're usually not even really long ones: 1-2 paragraphs, 1-2 sources cited. Usually on historical stuff, e.g. ancient Greek archaeological sites, or minor 18th/19th-century government officials, scientists, or inventors.
The most common outcome is that I never hear from anybody. The articles don't get nominated for deletion, and neither do they get improved by anyone else.
It had one ref and was marked {{stub}} - for a series of public art pieces relating to two major public events in a UK city. The event only really reaches 2 or 3 major city areas for 3 months every couple of years; I don't bother looking but I guess it's not WP:NOTABLE or whatever the tag is.
I'm not bothered really; better to delete them then than when I'd actually written the article.
That's actually something I do do! One of my on-again, off-again projects, which now that you mentioned it I should return to, is going through the book American Women Historians, 1700s–1900s: A Biographical Dictionary, and adding articles on the ones that're missing (which is a lot of them), especially those where I can find 2-3 additional sources to use for an article (which is still a lot of them). So far nobody's tried to delete my contributions.
While I highly regard Wikipedia's amazing and quite successful project, and hope there will be more editors that are female (oriented, not necessarily biological), there is still a lot that's not there, perhaps will never be, yet matters for various cultures and localities around the world, Wikipedia English has a built in bias (hint: English), and it's not a gendered one.