Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women in leadership positions on astronomical instrumentation projects


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vanamonde (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

List of women in leadership positions on astronomical instrumentation projects

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seen on WP:NPP. This is redundant to List of women astronomers, a "leadership position" is somewhat poorly defined, and there are no references about the specific cross-categorization. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the last bit means, but if Wikipedia can have List of optical telescopes and List of large optical telescopes and List of largest optical reflecting telescopes and List of largest optical telescopes historically and List of largest optical telescopes in the 20th century and List of the largest optical telescopes in the contiguous United States I guess we can have two distinct lists about women astronomers.Pmw21 (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Leadership position" is very well defined by the first sentence of the article: a Principle Investigator, a Project Scientist or the Director of an Observatory. Pmw21 (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete for being too specific per WP:SALAT. The vision-challenged Montanan horse thieves don't need company. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * KEEP: This article is distinct from List of women astronomers because not all women astronomers are instrumentalists. In fact, instrumentation is a field with very few women compared to men, so this article is an important reference. Pmw21 (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then would it make sense to change the scope to "List of women instrumentalists"? 3 variables is generally a lot for a list (women + leadership position + instrumentation projects). &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That would make the list far too long... hundreds of people. This list will be (at present) roughly 50, which is easily curatable.Pmw21 (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, regardless of whether this list is kept or the scope changed, the people without Wikipedia articles should be removed per WP:LISTPEOPLE. It's not sufficient to simply be what the title says -- the person must also be notable (qualify for a stand-alone article). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

KEEP It is a very useful list, to be PI of this sort of project is pretty significant and these women are likely to need wikipedia pages of their own so it will help to encourage them to be written by others. It seems specific without being too specific. Nejaby (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

KEEP This is fascinating! And will let us monitor leadership diversity throughout history. Jesswade88 (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

KEEP These are notable women for their position as a leader of one of these projects. If they are missing wikipedia articles that's an omission that should be fixed. I think this is a fascinatinng addition to other lists of notable astronomers. KarenLMasters (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

KEEP Having a leadership role on an astronomical project is equivalent to managing from a few million to billions of local currency of public funds. Getting to that degree of responsibility as a scientist clearly merits notability, and this list will clearly and quickly show who needs articles (generally they are presently lacking articles due to the known underrepresentation on WP), so Rhododendrites's point will be speedily addressed. Iridia (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This list has the potential for getting out of date very quickly, unless it has a section on past leaders and is then updated as and when retirements / change of role / new appointments occur. As an orphan it is not particularly useful to the project at this time. I wonder it would be better to collate these articles in a category rather than a list. Polyamorph (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree a section of past/current could make sense. As most of these positions are held either from concept through the duration of the respective mission (i.e. 5-10 years), or for directorships, at least a couple of years and generally more like 5-7 years, it may be a relatively minimal problem. Iridia (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep because it's a notable and reasonable list of notable people, although the title is clunky and as such the article needs to be moved/re-named. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be a worthwhile reference resource. DaveApter (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep but prune - entries without demonstrated notability (i.e., existing standalone articles) should be removed. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: It would help if the list header some effort for the article to satisfy WP:NOTESAL. Praemonitus (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is interesting, and benefits Wikipedia. However the name should be changed to sth shorter and easier to find while searching. Meets WP:Notability criteria as a topic, but the names included in the list need to be vetted. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.