Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Ortiz Longo

:{{la|Carlos Ortiz Longo}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carlos_Ortiz_Longo Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Carlos Ortiz Longo}})

A puff piece, heavily edited by someone who appears to be very involved with the subject. Being an aerospace engineer does not make one notable, and this person does not pass the GNG. Delete this as a resume/vanity piece about a non-notable person. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - I absolutely agree with the nominator in the sense that it seems as if Carlos Ortiz Longo, a friend or someone related to the subject has injected content to the article which is considered as a COI. I believe the subject to be notable because of his scientific written works and the awards received by NASA. That is the reason for which I removed any COI and POV content from the article. As I stated before, a lot of content seems to have been added by the subject or someone known to him. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

::The trouble with that is that Wikipedia's notability standards require substantial coverage about him, and works by him are not good enough. As for "awards received by NASA" (by which I assume you mean "awards received from NASA", awards given by an organisation to its own employees are not a great indication of notability, and in Wikipedia's terms they are again of no value unless there is significant coverage in independent sources about his receiving the awards; there is nothing whatever in the article to suggest that there is any such independent coverage. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• delete even after the supposed COI clean up, the article still fails to support the subject's notability. Also, it's completely based on dead links (that seemed to be trivial profiles of the subject) --damiens.rf 02:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Rather than a speedy delete, I recommend a two-week period, during which editors could search for links and additional documentation for notability. Sarason (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Ok. But what's yours keep's rationale? --damiens.rf 03:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Also, Sarason, the usual practice is to do exactly what you say but for just one week, rather than two. If nobody can manage to find sources in a week, is there really a very great chance that they can do so in two weeks? In my experience, if a subject is really notable by Wikipedia standards, a few minutes are usually enough to find evidence, and a couple of days are usually plenty. (That sometimes doesn't apply to older subjects, where information must be sought in old books etc, and there is little if anything on the internet, but that is unlikely to be the case for someone who until a few years ago was in a position in a major technological organisation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep - The multiple awards hew has received are a way for the scientific community, his peers, to provide "coverage" about his prominence. Pr4ever (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

:The "multiple awards" you mention are all awards received from the company he works in (NASA). As said above "awards given by an organisation to its own employees are not a great indication of notability". There isn't third part coverage about these awards, and Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to do so. --damiens.rf 12:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. This has the appearance of being about a mid-level scientific manager with a bunch of employee-of-the-week awards. Nothing in the article rises to the level of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - web searches turn up directories and social media, news searches yield nothing, article doesn't indicate why he should be notable, just another NASA employee. Kraxler (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete This person appears to be an outstanding NASA engineer who has had a productive career. Kudos to him and his friends and family. However, I see no evidence that he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If evidence to the contrary is provided, I will be happy to change my recommendation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. The notability criteria are not met here. —Swpb^talk 14:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, he seems like a great guy, but not notable. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.