Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Cauffman

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Sandra Cauffman}})

"a positive example" is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note to closer This AfD was not properly listed. The time of this comment is when it first appeared in a daily AfD page. Please consider that when closing. Monty₈₄₅ 22:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is poorly translated from Spanish (and has several content issues), but subject is an assistant division director at NASA mentioned in multiple news articles and some books on engineering management. I think that gets her over the notability line. -- 120.19.214.134 (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

:::assistant division director? A good case could be made that the Diurector of the Division of Earth Sciences there is notable, but the assistant ? She's have to be notable on the basis of her own scientific work, not just the administrative position. Based on the enWP article, the esWP article, and the sources in English and as best I can read them in Spanish, she never had charge of any one major project. She's written about in he own country becauseof the affiliation with NASA, but scientific notability is judged by international standards. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

::::I don't think she's "scientifically notable," as you put it, but the media coverage makes her a notable Costa Rican person, I think. That is, WP:PROF may not be met, but WP:BASIC probably is. -- 120.19.193.37 (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Cauffman passes GNG with non-trivial coverage in La Nación (San José) [http://www.nacion.com/vivir/ciencia/ideas-compartidas-poderosas_0_1447055323.html], [http://www.nacion.com/vivir/ciencia/Tica-Sandra-Cauffman-puesto-NASA_0_1562643763.html] , [http://www.nacion.com/vivir/ciencia/Mision-liderada-llegara-Marte-domingo_0_1439456055.html], The UN [http://beijing20.unwomen.org/en/news-and-events/stories/2014/5/woa-costa-rica-sandra-cauffman], Revista Perfil [http://www.revistaperfil.com/gente/Sandra-Cauffman-compartira-valentia-costarricenses_0_841715825.html], [http://www.revistaperfil.com/mujeres_que_inspiran/Sandra-Cauffman-Guia-espacial-esperanza_0_593940602.html], Costa Rican TV station Teletica [http://www.teletica.com/Noticias/126790-Diario-El-Pais-le-dedica-amplio-reportaje-a-la-tica-Sandra-Cauffman-de-la-NASA.note.aspx], [http://www.teletica.com/Noticias/69657-Sandra-Cauffman-nos-invita-a-sonar.note.aspx], the Tico Times [http://www.ticotimes.net/2014/09/19/meet-sandra-cauffman-the-tica-co-directing-nasas-current-mission-to-mars]. In addition, she is also profiled in a George Mason U publication [https://spirit.gmu.edu/2015/04/mission-control/], [https://spirit.gmu.edu/2014/09/mars-wish-mason-alumna-makes-nasa-dream-come-true/]. I'll be adding the references and such to the article. I may find more. The article needs work, and I don't mind working on it a bit. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. While I see the same several "article issues" that {{U|DGG}} probably sees (promotional tone, some sources are not independent), there's nothing I see that can't be fixed by normal editing processes. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2016 (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.