Talk:Pickering's Harem

About speedy deletion based on the criteria "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.":

I think this collective of women are notable enough to have its own entry in Wikipedia. They made possible some of the great advancements of astronomy at the beginning of last century and provided a way to some women to enter, albeit painfully slowly, in mainstream astronomy research (as in the case of Cecilia Payne). So, I think that they deserve by their own an entry, independent of the one that already have some of the most notable women of this collective.Sagilca (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree that this subject is notable enough to avoid speedy deletion. If someone thinks it should go I recommend AFD. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * At first glance, and admitting that I'm not astronomy expert, this page seems to be nothing more than a cut/paste of certain text from the Pickering article. I would suggest that it redirect to Pickering's article unless there is more information added. Lordjeff06 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest, that given that the article has been around just for 5 minutes ;), to give it some more minutes before merging. I plan to add more info and so maybe it would be better to give it some more time before deciding what to do with it, if to merge or not to merge Sagilca (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This title, which doe not sound very encyclopedic, gets only 165 Google hits exclusive of mirrors of Wikipedia, suggesting it may be lacking notability. Still, if sufficient reliable sources with substantial discussion of it can be added it might be ok. The 17 hits at Google books are very promising, as are the 14 hits at Google Scholar:. Edison (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)